tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56340856757802540112024-03-17T05:52:38.249+11:00practical BIMPractical tips on making BIM work.Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-54128330482933366542017-10-02T07:22:00.000+11:002019-06-16T09:06:18.353+10:00Use a Revit Road Map to get to BIM<br />
Unless you want to get hopelessly lost all journeys require a road map. Sure you can wing it and see where it gets you, but using a road map means you will not only get there faster, but also arrive at the correct place, not a place that might or might not be where you need to get to.<br />
<br />
BIM is new and still evolving. Pretty much everyone is on a journey to implement BIM into their work practices. We all have need of a road map.<br />
<br />
BIM may be a process, but it is a process that is not possible without software. You can't create models, or extract information from them, without software. So the beginning of any road map starts with the software being used. And you can't do anything if no model exists, so the obvious starting point is BIM authoring software. Revit is my example, for no other any reason than I know it well. The specifics may differ but any BIM authoring software will require similar milestones in their road map.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihJX20jGQEeD72_0nbWVrs-GgQwW0RI6BTpInKJz9gqIX45IvsKsWa3Yg9IPhFE3qRHzUPvjQhNDK4OxVJkUt1yB-Ac6EEGRWvMo8qUnhfws9ljjhDjGOm-hS4GtCuZ3_ULmXuXhxhyphenhyphenf51/s1600/RevitOnRoad_550.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihJX20jGQEeD72_0nbWVrs-GgQwW0RI6BTpInKJz9gqIX45IvsKsWa3Yg9IPhFE3qRHzUPvjQhNDK4OxVJkUt1yB-Ac6EEGRWvMo8qUnhfws9ljjhDjGOm-hS4GtCuZ3_ULmXuXhxhyphenhyphenf51/s1600/RevitOnRoad_550.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<h4>
Not all software is BIM capable</h4>
It may seem obvious, but it is worth stating: Make sure the software you are creating a road map for is BIM capable.<br />
And be aware that BIM authoring software works differently from CAD and 3D drawing programs. For a start in BIM capable software many people work together in a single file. What they do will have an effect on everyone else working in the model. Things are shared - where a particular wall is required the same wall component has to be used by everyone.<br />
The model is also used for more, much more, than just drawing or image production. It is used as a repository for information about the building. A fire rating is given to a wall not just so its tag will be correct, it is so anyone using the model, from fellow designers, other engineers, and contractors, can tell instantly from within the model (or exports of that model) that the wall is fire rated.<br />
And because it contains this information the model can be used for checking. Fire rated walls and fire rated doors can be colour coded to check fire compartmentalisation and that fire walls have corresponding fire rated doors.<br />
<br />
If your authoring software can't do these things then it is not BIM capable. Not all software that do 3D modelling is BIM capable. A BIM add-on to a CAD (whether 2D or 3D) program is unlikely to be BIM capable to any degree of sophistication. Also it can be difficult to get users to model BIM if they have the opportunity to just draw. Don't waste your time on these softwares.<br />
<br />
<br />
There is nothing particularly unusual about a BIM software road map. If you use proper BIM software the way it was designed to be used the result will be a good quality BIM model suitable for others to use. Indeed you can do no more than this. We are not software engineers, none of us should be expected to delve into the innards of our software to get a particular result. If that is a requirement it is beyond the scope of design professionals and should be paid for, so someone else can do it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
PEOPLE</h3>
I said above any BIM road map begins with software. Not entirely true. First you need the people in place to make the road map and to oversee the journey. No journey is going to happen by itself. Just buying software and making it available is no different from dumping a whole lot of unicycles in the office and expecting people (who?) to ride them (how?) to get somewhere (where?).<br />
<br />
First there needs to be someone on the executive team responsible for making it happen. Just reporting to senior management on progress will not work, someone senior has to actively push it.<br />
<br />
There needs to be an expert responsible for implementation, usually a BIM Manager.<br />
<br />
Project teams need to be restructured.<br />
Every project must have a Model Manager responsible for the well being of project models.<br />
<br />
Team responsibility must be adjusted.<br />
Individuals must be made responsible for the totality of parts of the building, each being responsible for managing the drawings and schedules their part of the building requires. For example the Facade: from window including elevations, details, material schedules, Interiors: walls, including wall types, doors, door schedules.<br />
<br />
To assist on-going implementation there should be a component (called Families in Revit) manager responsible for creation and management of component libraries.<br />
<br />
And finally there should be a system of "experts", people who gain expertise in particular aspects of the software and/or BIM processes. Like a stair expert, railing expert, wall expert, etc.<br />
<br />
But perhaps the most important issue to do with people is a cultural change across the organisation. The acknowledgement that the task at hand is no longer to produce drawings, pictures or standalone schedules, but to produce a virtual model of a real building, a 'Digital Twin'. This is why project teams need to be restructured.<br />
Non-users of the software must also change their approach. Rather than asking for a particular drawing or set of drawings, senior architects and engineers should be asking for information about a particular part of the building. If they are seeking to validate or check something ask for that information. Traditional drawings may not be the most efficient way to present it. In the fire rating example above a coloured coded set of 3D views will provide more digestible information than a black and white plan with wall tags. Quicker to produce and less tedious to check.<br />
<br />
<h3>
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY</h3>
After defining who will do what the next milestone is to set a communication strategy. There is no point going on this journey alone, the whole organisation has to come along as well. And the strategy must ensure stragglers don't get left behind. After all, not everyone wants to move forward.<br />
<br />
A communication strategy may tie in with existing processes, so can vary from office to office. But as a minimum there needs to be:<br />
<ul>
<li>In-house BIM Software Manual</li>
<li>Regular Training (at least initially)</li>
<li>Regular Seminars (where 'experts' can shine)</li>
</ul>
A regular newletter to keep everyone informed, and hopefully interested, could also be added to the list.<br />
<h4>
<br />BIM Software Manual</h4>
The BIM Software Manual must be instantly accessible to everyone, and be searchable. It must be easily updated and added to, and allow users to comment.<br />
The only thing I know of that fits this criteria is an on-line wiki. Word documents printed to PDF are not even close, even if those PDF pages are added to the office intranet. I once worked in an office where the original word file for the BIM manual had been lost, making it really, really, hard to update.<br />
<br />
Creating a wiki these days is trivial. It can be done with any of the many web site creation services available. You can lock it down with passwords, or keep it in-house by creating it on your own servers. <a href="http://wordpress.org/" target="_blank">WordPress.org</a> is a free version that can be installed on your office's servers. I've installed Wordpress many times, it is not hard or time consuming. You can probably use a Sharepoint Intranet (don't use it to 'share' word documents as a manual though) if you already have it, although the last time I tried that it was so time consuming I gave up. Maybe it has improved.<br />
If you can't, or have trouble, getting official permission set up a demonstration wiki on a free web creation service, like <a href="https://wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Wordpress.com</a>, or free hosting service with a wordpress.org install. Just make sure you use one that can export the site (i.e. not Google Sites)<br />
<br />
Because a wiki is interactive you don't have to wait until you have all the information available before setting it up. Just set up it's headings and progressively fill in the information, in any order. If you already have a CAD manual you might have a whole lot of drafting standards you can immediately put in it. And don't worry about getting headings right, you can easily change them later on, including their order. It is not like you will have to cut and paste enormous amounts of text within a word document.<br />
What ever you do don't fall into the trap of "we'll do when we finished the manual". The reality is the manual will NEVER be finished. As the office becomes better at using the software processes should be changed, things that don't work should be revised, and then there is the fact software changes with every new version. You will never get on top of it so just accept that and work with it.<br />
<br />
The type of headings you might start with could include:<br />
<br />
<b>PROTOCOLS</b><br />
Protocols for managing Revit<br />
<b>STANDARDS</b><br />
In-house standards, including naming, to follow when using Revit.<br />
<b>PRACTICE</b><br />
Explanations and procedures for workflows<br />
<b>GUIDELINES</b><br />
Guidelines for best practice.<br />
<b>TIPS and TRICKS</b><br />
Tips and tricks for using Revit.<br />
<b>ASSISTANCE & HELP</b><br />
Sources of help, specific problems, bugs, and their solutions.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Regular Training</h4>
You can't expect people to be able to use software without some training. Even if they know how to use the software new people will need to be introduced to the way your office does things.<br />
For new learners short bursts of training of no more than 4 hours are better than a whole day, or multiple day long sessions. Also no more than 5 to 6 people at a time, any more and some will get left behind. For more experienced users keep sessions to an hour and on specific topics. They will be busy and won't be able to spare more time than that.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Regular Seminars</h4>
Set up regular seminars, with the emphasis on regular so people can plan to attend them. Lunch times are best as you are more likely to get people attending. Provide lunch and even those not that interested will attend.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Newletters or Regular Posts</h4>
I have found a good way to keep everyone informed and somewhat interested is a regular email newsletter, or if your organisation uses social media, regular posts. Include things to do with the software and its use, titbits about general IT, BIM and your industry.<br />
<br />
<br />
So that is the soft start, setting up the framework to make it happen. Now for the hard information you will need.<br />
<br />
<h3>
FOLDERS & FILES</h3>
Anything involving computer files requires some way of organising them. Unless you are a brand new start up or moving from paper straight to BIM you will already have a way of organising computer files. But it is worth at least reconsidering the way you organise files to suit your BIM software.<br />
<br />
I find many design offices have electronic filing systems based on archival storage, usually following the paper filing system that predated computers. But we also need somewhere to store files currently being worked on - Work in Progress (WIP).<br />
The requirements for WIP is different from archival storage. People are opening, saving and closing files much more often; linking of files makes the location of file and paths critical; long folder and file names become a productivity hindrance.<br />
So it is worth developing a folder structure exclusively for WIP that is not embedded within the archival system.<br />
<br />
Another missing part of most computer filing systems is that there is no place to keep current documents. For drawings that is the equivalent of the old project drawing stick set. As drawings change so quickly now it is impractical to rely on a printed set of drawings, so there should be a place in the filing system where the latest drawings can be kept for anyone to access.<br />
Of course if you use a document management system (like Newforma, Aconex, BIM 360, etc.) you will have that functionality and not need it in your filing system.<br />
<br />
It is also worth putting some thought in to file naming. Because of the way BIM authoring software files are shared and linked together file names can be a help or a hindrance. Overly long file names are a pain for everyone, as are highly codified names. One thing worth putting in Revit file names is the version, but keep it short: <i>R18 </i>somewhere in the name is quite adequate.<br />
<br />
<h3>
NAMING STANDARDS</h3>
Unlike CAD and 3D drawing programs BIM software have a lot of things that are named by users. When I say a lot, I'm not exaggerating. Here is a list from Revit 2017:<br />
<br />
<style type="text/css"><!--td {border: 1px solid #ccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;}--></style><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; table-layout: fixed; width: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><colgroup><col width="158"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Area Schemes"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Area Schemes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Arrows"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Arrows</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Beam Systems"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Beam Systems</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Browser Organisation"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Browser Organisation</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Cable Tray Fittings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Cable Tray Fittings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Cable Trays"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Cable Trays</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Ceilings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Ceilings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Color Schemes"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Color Schemes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Conduits"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Conduits</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Curtain Panels"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Curtain Panels</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Curtain Systems"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Curtain Systems</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Design Options"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Design Options</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Detail Groups"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Detail Groups</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"DGN Export settings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">DGN Export settings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Dimensions"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Dimensions</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Duct Fittings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Duct Fittings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Duct Systems"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Duct Systems</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Ducts"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Ducts</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"DWG/DXF Export settings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">DWG/DXF Export settings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Family File names"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Family File names</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Family Type names "}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Family Type names </td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Fill Pattern"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Fill Pattern</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Filled Regions"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Filled Regions</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Flex Ducts"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Flex Ducts</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Flex Pipes"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Flex Pipes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Floors"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Floors</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Foundation Slab"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Foundation Slab</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Handrails, Top Handrail"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Handrails, Top Handrail</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"IFC Export settings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">IFC Export settings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"In-place Families"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">In-place Families</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Legend Names"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Legend Names</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Levels"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Levels</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Line Patterns"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Line Patterns</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Line Styles"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Line Styles</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Linked Files"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Linked Files</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Materials"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Materials</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Model Groups"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Model Groups</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Mullions"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Mullions</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Pads"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Pads</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Phase Filters"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Phase Filters</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Phases"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Phases</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Pipe Fittings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Pipe Fittings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Pipes"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Pipes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Piping Systems"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Piping Systems</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Print Sets"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Print Sets</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Print Settings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Print Settings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Project File name"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Project File name</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Railings"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Railings</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Ramps"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Ramps</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Reference Planes"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Reference Planes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Repeating Components"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Repeating Components</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Roofs"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Roofs</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Schedule Names"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Schedule Names</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Scope Boxes"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Scope Boxes</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Selection Sets"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Selection Sets</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sites"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Sites</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Spot Coordinate"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Spot Coordinate</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Spot Elevations"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Spot Elevations</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Spot Slope"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Spot Slope</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Stacked Walls"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Stacked Walls</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Stair Parts (10 in total)"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Stair Parts (10 in total)</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Stair Path"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Stair Path</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Stairs"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Stairs</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Sub-Categories"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Sub-Categories</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Text"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Text</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"View Filters"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">View Filters</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"View Names"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">View Names</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"View Tags"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">View Tags</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"View Templates"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">View Templates</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"View Types"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">View Types</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Walls"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Walls</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="{"1":2,"2":"Worksets"}" style="overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: top; word-wrap: break-word;">Worksets</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This list excludes naming and numbering required for normal document production - Sheet numbers, Sheet titles, codes for tags, etc. So you can't just take your existing CAD manual and "adjust" it.<br />
<br />
The important point here is that users should NEVER be in a position where they have to make names up. If everyone is making their own names up with no guidance how an earth can you expect anything other than a massive mess? Where users are unable to find what they need (e.g. a wall type) so create a new one, leading to multiple components for the same thing.<br />
<br />
It is critically important that every single thing that can be named has guidance on how it should be named, and that guidance has to be articulated as a standard that must be followed.<br />
<br />
But that doesn't mean naming has to be rigidly defined. Defining a naming structure with guidelines will have more chance of being followed than a fixed list that has to be referred to, or worse, memorised. The same guidelines can even be used for naming multiple types of things.<br />
As long as the guidelines are not too ambiguous. I have seen a manual where the naming guideline for components was a prefix that described what it was, typically its category. But it didn't have a list of standard prefixes so I found casework family names prefixed with <i>Case_, Casework_, Casement_,</i> <i>Join_, Joinery_ </i>& <i>Joineries_</i>. Not very helpful!<br />
<br />
I've written about naming before (<a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/search?q=naming" target="_blank">The Nature of Naming</a>), but I'll repeat the important points here.<br />
<ul>
<li>Be literal - names should be understandable to anyone not working on the project <br />(pb13, not P01 or L13).</li>
<li>Keep name lengths to the minimum necessary to still be understandable, abbreviate and truncate where possible. </li>
<li>Avoid padding.<br />(<i>Line-Xhatch</i> not <i>Line - Xhatch</i>; <i>pb13/stud92/pb13 </i> not <i>pb 13 / stud 92 / pb 13</i>)</li>
<li>Use Major-Medius-Minor name schema<br />(<i>Glass Clear </i>not <i>Clear Glass</i>)</li>
<li>Define structure but be flexible on specifics<br />(<i>plasterboard13</i>, <i>plasterbd13, pbd13, </i> <i>pb13</i> are all acceptable)</li>
<li>Consider how names will list alphabetically<br />(<i>Light, Medium, Wide</i> not <i>Light, Medium, Heavy)</i></li>
<li>Use CAPITALS purposefully<br />(e.g. use capitals for views on sheets, sentencecase or lowercase for all others; capitals for fixed prefixes.)</li>
</ul>
<br />
There are a few of other points to consider when naming in BIM software.<br />
<h4>
Names are for your purposes only, it is NOT project data:</h4>
Names are what I call HUIDs - Human Understandable IDentifiers. They are for the humans creating the model, for everyone else there is the data within objects for them to use.<br />
<br />
This means that names must be human understandable. Highly codified naming systems (like using Omniclass numbers or IFC names) defeats the purpose of having names in the first place. It is also pointless because that data can be part of the data within the object anyway.<br />
This is why I refuse to follow any outside demand to use their naming scheme, typically from contractors, but also by COBie. Happy to provide a parameter for their name, but names in our software are for our purposes only.<br />
<h4>
Name what something IS, or name for what it is FOR:</h4>
When deciding on a name it seems easier to name it by what it is, (<i>Text 2.5, Solid Grey, Line 05, pb13/stud64/pb13</i>). This is a carry over from hand drafting which found its way into CAD. You didn't draw using a wall, you used a 0.5 pen. But in BIM software you do "draw" using a wall, and not only that, you can name it what you want.<br />
So in BIM software if you want you can name things after what they are for. Instead of naming a wall type <i>pb13/stud64/pb13</i> you can name it <i>Internal Stud-Typical</i>.<br />
<br />
There are a number of advantages to doing this. It is easier for users to identify what to use - there is less likely to be duplicates for the same purpose, and it is easier to change later.<br />
<br />
Say you have two people working in the same project, one thinks internal walls need insulation, the other doesn't. One creates <i>pb13/stud64,insul50/pb13</i> the other <i>pb13/stud64/pb13.</i> The project becomes a mixture of the two types. If the name was <i>Internal Stud-Typical</i> from the start they would have had to fight it out (or actually do some research instead of guessing) before it got to that stage. And even if they made the wrong decision no big deal. As all internal walls are the same type so just the properties of that type need to be changed. If they each used their own walls someone would have to find all instances of the wrong walls and changing them to the correct type.<br />
<br />
This follows through to annotation objects. Name a Filled Region <i>Clearance-Disability</i> instead of <i>Xhatch Red</i> and it is trivial to change all instances of filled regions used to show disability clearances to something else, just change the parameter values of <i>Clearance-Disability</i>. It also makes it possible to create view filters that only hide disability clearances. If you don't do this and you need to make a change then every occurrence across all views have to be found and manually changed, and forget about using a view filter.<br />
<br />
That said it can be difficult to enforce naming strictly based on what something is used for. It can also get messy when projects become complex, particularly during documentation. Indeed some projects end up without a "typical" internal wall at all.<br />
A good solution is a hybrid - usage and content: <i>INTstud_pb13/stud64/pb13. </i>Or one I use during documentation - code and content: <i>W.S01_pb13/stud64/pb13.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Yes, a bit redundant, and yes, more management as the name has to be changed if the content changes. But remember names are HUIDs, they are there to help users do their job. And if a bit of redundancy, or indeed management overhead, helps, then it is perfectly justifiable.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Published Standards</h4>
I hear you all saying about now, "Can't we just use existing published standards?" Sure, you can try.<br />
Firstly they don't cover everything that needs naming, secondly keep in mind BIM standards are not created to make your work easier, but so it is easier for those that use your models. Remember that names are for your users, not for others, so what is the point following a standard created for some-one else?<br />
That said it may be worth reviewing standards and using the bits that are useful to you, or altering it to make it useful to you.<br />
For those interested have a look at <a href="http://bimblog.house/" target="_blank">bimblog.house</a> as Dan tries to force his house to follow published BIM standards.<br />
<br />
<h3>
PARAMETERS</h3>
Besides all the things built-in to Revit that have to be named, there are things that users create that must be named, such as parameters.<br />
<br />
Parameters are used to drive parametric behaviour (<i>Width</i> in a door family), for tagging, (<i>Mark</i> and <i>Type Mark</i>), and scheduling (<i>Width, Mark, Type Mark</i>).<br />
There are Family parameters that are created to work within a family only (typically for parametric behaviour), and Shared Parameters which work across all families and projects (only Shared Parameters can appear in tags).<br />
<br />
Not all parameters require naming, some are built-in to the software, like System Parameters that behave like Shared Parameters but can not be renamed.<br />
<br />
Besides naming there are other things that users require guidance on:<br />
<ul>
<li>Parameters have a data type: <i>Integer</i>, <i>Number</i>, <i>Length</i>, <i>Material</i>, etc.</li>
<li>Parameters are grouped under built-in parameter headings: <i>Dimensions</i>, <i>Materials</i>, <i>Construction</i>, <i>Graphics</i> etc.</li>
<li>Parameters can be <i>Type</i> driven (different types of things vary), or <i>Instance</i> driven (each item can vary even if the same type).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Managing parameters is beyond the scope of this post, but things that should be considered are:<br />
<ul>
<li>Define what built-in parameters are to be used for. <br />For example <i>Type Mark</i> is tag code, <i>Type Comment</i> is drawing note, <i>Description</i> is schedule description.</li>
<li>Create naming standards for parameter names. <br />Major-Medius-Minor using CamelCase is popular. Don't use math symbols in names (like dashes or slashes).</li>
<li>Create a different naming standard for Shared Parameters. <br />Shared Parameters are seen by everyone who gets the model. It is polite to identify it as your parameter.</li>
<li>Guidance of parameter type heading to be used. <br />e.g. <i>Dimensions</i> for gross parametric changes, <i>Model Properties</i> for changes to parts, <i>Visibility</i> for changes to object, <i>Graphic</i> for changes to representation.</li>
<li>Guidance on data type. <br />e.g. dimensions must be <i>Length</i>, array values <i>Integers</i>, materials <i>Material</i> (never <i>Text</i>), when <i>Text</i> may or may not be used.</li>
<li>Guidance on when to use <i>Type</i> or <i>Instance</i>. <br />e.g. Objects that are schedule by type should use Type parameters, <i>Materials </i>are always instance.</li>
<li>Guidance on <i>Project Parameters</i><br />When should be used, when should instance parameter vary between groups. </li>
<li>Methods for managing <i>Shared Parameters</i>. <br />Protocols for adding new parameters, location of Shared Parameter file, etc.</li>
<li>Establish standard <i>Shared Parameters</i> that are required for schedules.<br />Review your standards schedules and document which parameters are required to create them.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
PARAMETER CONTENT</h3>
As mentioned above parameters hold values used in tags and schedules. To improve accuracy, efficiency and readability of tags and schedules it is worth revisiting the tag type codes you currently use and how your schedules are structured. Methods used in manually created schedules may be cumbersome in Revit, and there may be things you can now do that were too difficult to do manually.<br />
<br />
For example paragraphs of descriptive text are difficult to manage in Revit schedules. Data should be kept concise as possible and separated in to multiple parameters.<br />
This is not a quirk of Revit, it is a requirement for BIM. Computers don't understand descriptive sentences, they only understand precise data. Including the manufacturer, model, colour and supplier address all in one sentence, as one piece of data, will prevent anyone using the advantages BIM brings.<br />
<br />
One of the things I find in manual schedules is that there is often duplicates, or close duplicates, in codes within different schedules. For example <i>CO</i> used for - concrete wall; to identify columns; and as prefix for material colours (CO01). Or <i>WB</i> for - masonry block wall; whiteboard; and weatherboard.<br />
It is worth creating a unified list of standard codes for everything to prevent this happening. Now, I realise this is not actually possible, no-one can predict every code that may possibly be used in to the future. But it is possible to develop a naming system that divides up codes so duplicates are less likely.<br />
I use a system that uses a category prefix. The examples above become <i>W.CO, C.CO</i> and <i>M.CO01</i>. <i>W.WB</i>, <i>I.WB</i> and <i>M.WB. </i>(I wouldn't actually use these codes, but you get the idea).<br />
<br />
Another thing I commonly find is a confusion between what is a material (e.g. plasterboard) and what is a construction system (e.g. plasterboard stud wall). Then you see both the material and wall type are tagged <i>PB</i> in a project. But they are clearly different, and Revit makes it explicit because walls and materials are completely separate things.<br />
To avoid confusion I use a totally different naming schema for materials than construction types (no prefix as per my example above). I also make sure material tags are graphically different from type tags.<br />
<br />
<h3>
LOADABLE COMPONENTS</h3>
Components, called <i>Families</i> in Revit, are separate files that are loaded into a project file. In Revit files are also different categories - Casework, Doors, Plumbing Fixtures, Windows etc.<br />
Besides guidelines for naming the files there should be guidelines on how they are to be constructed, and how parameters are to be used in them. They appear in schedules which means the data between families must be consistent. And families are used by multiple people, so must not be overly complex to use.<br />
<br />
Creating Families requires quite different skills to working in a project model, which is why I suggested above that a Family Manager be appointed. In fact I would go further and say that not everyone should be expected to create families. There should be a dedicated office family creator, or an elite of family authors (probably more realistic).<br />
<br />
Even if handled by experts it is still worth documenting guidelines for creating families, a separate Family Creation and Management manual. Of course it should still exist within the office BIM Software wiki, still be searchable, still be commentable. But it talks to a higher skill level than the rest of the office manual.<br />
<br />
There are a few standards available on Family creation. The <a href="https://aecuk.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">AEC (UK) Revit Standard</a> and <a href="http://www.anzrs.org/" target="_blank">ANZRS</a> for example. If you involved in mechanical engineering you should definitely be referring to <a href="http://www.bimmepaus.com.au/" target="_blank">BIM-MEP [aus]</a>.<br />
But as I said above I wouldn't just absorb them whole, take from them what will work for you.<br />
<br />
<h3>
PRINTING & DOCUMENT CONTROL</h3>
To me printing and document control can be a massive time waster. It often takes hours to produce a print set with transmittal, all because there is no work process in place to automate what is an extremely simple task.<br />
So it is really important to have a standard procedure in place for preparing drawings for issue, printing, and transmittal creation. One that any idiot can follow (then you might be able to get the project director to print their own drawings).<br />
<br />
I don't know about other BIM softwares but Revit is crap at managing printing and document control (it doesn't natively print to PDF, nor can it add revisions numbers to file names when printing). The only realistic solution is a third party add-in to do it for you.<br />
So pick one, make sure everyone has access to it, then document the workflow using your choice of third party software.<br />
<br />
<h3>
PROJECT MODEL PROTOCOLS AND GUIDELINES</h3>
Another time waster is reinventing the wheel every time something has to be done. And then there are things in Revit that if not done the right way at the beginning are either impossible to fix (like physically move a model to new coordinates) or difficult and confusing (like unravelling how groups have been set up), or just time consuming (like moving things between worksets).<br />
So it pays to document (and then enforce) best practice workflows, protocols and guidelines for as many things you can think of. As a start I suggest the following:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Project set up:<br />Project Base Point, method to set Survey Point, CAD surveys etc.</li>
<li>Managing Linked files:<br />When to use linked files, what they contain, which files which sheets live in, etc.</li>
<li>Worksets: <br />Building breakup, which to have closed on loading, etc.</li>
<li>Phases & Phase filters:<br />What to use phases for, filters to use, Graphic overrides, etc.</li>
<li>View protocols: <br />When to use what type of view, managing working, management, temporary views.</li>
<li>Category use: <br />When to use what categories</li>
<li>Group Protocols: <br />When to use groups, groups and worksets, mirroring groups.</li>
<li>Options: <br />When to use, when to remove.</li>
<li>Reference Planes:<br />when to use, how to manage</li>
</ul>
<br />
Keep in mind this will be an unending task. Best practice is something that evolves, and should be constantly challenged. Comments can be valuable here if you encourage users to pitch in with their views (a.k.a. bitch and complain) when things don't work, or could work better. Just don't take it personally.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BEST MODELLING PRACTICE</h3>
It is always useful to have a model constructed as best it can be. This section is where you can set out how to model well, and by extension modelling expectations. Some of the things you might start with:<br />
<ul>
<li>Degree of Detail: <br />e.g. only model what is visible at 1:50.</li>
<li>Simplify - diagram rather than realistic representation:<br />e.g. use model lines for joints and casework doors & drawers</li>
<li>Hosting: <br />on <i>Levels</i> or <i>Reference Planes</i> not object faces</li>
<li>Best Practice for all system components: <br />Walls, Stairs, Railings, etc.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Like Project Model Protocols & Guidelines this section will be forever a work in progress.<br />
<br />
<h3>
STANDARDISING WORKFLOWS & AUTOMATION</h3>
Once naming, protocols and guidelines are in place it becomes possible to define whole workflows - what is the best process for getting particular tasks done. And once you know what a workflow involves it is possible to automate all, or at least some of it.<br />
<br />
This is when you start reaping the benefits of BIM.<br />
<br />
Workflows can involve - model checking; for compliance with your manual; for checking completeness and accuracy of the model. Like the fire rating check mentioned above.<br />
They can also involve tasks usually done manually, such as automating room numbering; door numbering; sheet and view creation; management tasks like renaming views.<br />
<br />
<br />
But you can't do any of this if your models are not set up in a known and consistent manner. If you haven't got to your destination, the end of your road map.<br />
<br />
Of course the end of your road map is not the end of your trip, you will continue to travel back and forth over that road. Those workflows and automations that are now possible need to be integrated into your BIM Software manual, replacing the old methods.<br />
<br />
Indeed this Revit road map is not the whole journey, it only gets you an airport, the beginning of your next adventure that will take you to places you have never seen, or imagined. The journey to true and pure BIM.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-23766734476616988642017-04-29T14:00:00.000+10:002017-04-29T14:00:59.664+10:00BIM Model Safety<div>
Over the last decade or so the construction industry has become more concerned with safety. With good reason, building sites can be dangerous places. </div>
<div>
A building site can be made safer by keeping it clean and orderly. Store rubbish where it is out of the way, remove rubbish in a timely manner; store materials in an orderly fashion; sign post and label so the workforce knows what is going on. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
BIM models are virtual computer simulations of real buildings, so to an extent the process of creating a BIM model mimics that of constructing a real building.<br />
<div>
<br />
<div>
So just like real buildings keeping models clean and ensuring clear labelling leads to models less likely to suffer from accidents.<br />
<div>
Mind you the accidents that happen in a model won't kill you (although the BIM Manager may threaten to), they nevertheless cause unnecessary extra work and stress.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span id="goog_880500351"></span><span id="goog_880500352"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheH1-crt6Va1EPcz3qiL7UVP4O5IKIC9YYJkBzZFtYCN69RueQEJ_rSTjIq_dGKs-WlhKl3-zZQ67CbS-45JZ0bChF4vCJwRrBPOgB3QbKhVTS1XQe1ukDM-QRnVm7dB6UPk01mi92KGGn/s1600/Clean+Area_560p.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheH1-crt6Va1EPcz3qiL7UVP4O5IKIC9YYJkBzZFtYCN69RueQEJ_rSTjIq_dGKs-WlhKl3-zZQ67CbS-45JZ0bChF4vCJwRrBPOgB3QbKhVTS1XQe1ukDM-QRnVm7dB6UPk01mi92KGGn/s400/Clean+Area_560p.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the good old CAD days it wasn't as critical, although still pretty frustrating. All we had to worry about was layers and filenames. </div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
Now in BIM models everything has a name. From <i>Fill Patterns</i> to <i>Views</i> to <i>Groups</i> to <i>Parameters</i>. Revit thankfully doesn't have that amorphous thing called <i>Layers</i> which can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. But never the less there are many, many more things that have names. (ArchiCAD has the misfortune of many things to name as well as Layers). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another difference is that BIM models, just like real building sites, have multiple people working in the same space on the same elements. </div>
<div>
This wasn't a problem in CAD. One person would draw a wall in plan in their own CAD file, another person would draw the same wall in elevation in their own CAD file, another person draw it in section, another person schedule it, etc.</div>
<div>
Now in a BIM model that wall is shared by everyone, including people who didn't create the wall in the first place.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
So the need for model cleanliness and clarity is just as critical as it is on a real building site.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I would go as far as saying it is impossible to create an accurate, error free model (and by extension documentation) with an unclean model. And that is because it is extremely difficult to check such a model with any degree of certainty. When I come across a messy model I know no-one has checked it properly, and by extension that the drawings and schedules produced by that model will be full of errors and missing information.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Principals of Cleanliness</h3>
<div>
A clean model is a model that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Doesn't contain things that are not used or will never be used.</b></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
e.g. <i>Asbestos Insulation</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Has only one type of element for the same thing.</b></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
e.g. <i>CONC 200</i> and <i>Core Wall</i> and <i>S_CO_IN_3</i> which are all 200mm concrete walls </blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Has names for things that clearly identifies what they are or what they are for.</b></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
e.g. doesn't have names like <i>Section 59</i> or <i>Generic 100</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnOc4pWS1fP5TVxQtokYR-Sy20fo9cluhZeAOsN5FqaPGh8-fMU_fKPoGVTc4yqRVrTtcPqI4pEFtcDpXvVXiri52pieixSSn8gIuQHZTdWTGSVgc5aqFwXJ0NLQDPydacxEdCe5VvwAqR/s1600/UncleanNames01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnOc4pWS1fP5TVxQtokYR-Sy20fo9cluhZeAOsN5FqaPGh8-fMU_fKPoGVTc4yqRVrTtcPqI4pEFtcDpXvVXiri52pieixSSn8gIuQHZTdWTGSVgc5aqFwXJ0NLQDPydacxEdCe5VvwAqR/s1600/UncleanNames01.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Look familiar?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Now these are not hard and fast rules, they are more principles that need to be intelligently applied.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Often you will want to keep things not currently used in the model in case they will be needed in the future. For example title blocks of different sizes. And at the beginning of a project there will be a lot of thing is that haven't been used yet but might be used - that is the reasoning behind Project Templates. </div>
<div>
But as things are locked down it is important to get rid of things that aren't going to be used. If this is not done there is the risk that people will pick out unused things and place them in the project. This extends from non-standard section reference heads to non-compliant doors and walls.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It may seem an oxymoron to state that it is important the same thing be used for elements that are the same, but it is surprising how often this doesn't happen. To be fair sometimes it is necessary due to software limitations. For example in Revit the way a wall wraps its materials at wall ends is driven by a type parameter so you end up with two wall types for the same wall; one that wraps and one that doesn't.</div>
<div>
But otherwise if duplicates are not eradicated error free tagging and scheduling is nigh impossible.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both of these issues hinge on the third principal of cleanliness - name things clearly. If you can't identify what something is it is difficult to know if it is likely be used or not on the project, nor whether it is a duplicate or not. It is also difficult for modellers to select the correct thing if they can't tell what things are from their name. Indeed they are more likely to create a new thing rather than trawl through an ever increasing list of things to select from, leading to multiple definitions for the same type of element.</div>
<div>
</div>
<h3>
Naming is the Key</h3>
<div>
Modellers interact with the model through the names of things. When creating something or looking for something they are looking through lists of names. Lists of views, lists of Wall types, lists of Line Styles, lists of Beam types, etc. While it is true there are other parameters (names are just one of many parameters an object has) that could better identify things they are not immediately visible to the modeller - they have to interrogate each object to see its parameters. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is not the case for other users of a model. They are not interested in what something is called within the BIM model, they just care about the data that is contained in it. A contractor may use the object's type code it has been tagged with, FM the manufacturer and model number, QS the material code. Indeed for the reasons outlined above it would be dangerous for them to rely on the names of things in a BIM model.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Therefore the names of things in a model are purely for the purposes of modelling. They don't have to suit anyone else but the team working at creating the model. I treat this as sacrosanct and refuse to follow naming conventions that contractors or clients try and impose. Happy to add extra parameters, but sorry, names belong to us.<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
Naming Strategy</h3>
<div>
I'm not a fan of hard and fast rules (probably because I also believe rules are made for breaking). </div>
<div>
My preferred approach is to define naming structures rather than codes to use for naming. Divide a name into fields with particular purposes, but give people the freedom to decide what to put in those fields.</div>
<div>
The most basic structure is to follow a major-medius-minor form.</div>
<div>
e.g. <i>Door Swing Glazed </i>instead of <i>Glazed swing door<br /> Detail Section Wall</i><i> </i>instead of <i>Wall section detail</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not a fan of over-abbreviation, or being too rhetorical. <i>CO</i> is too ambiguous, <i>Concrete </i> is overkill, <i>CONC </i> is about right.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the most important thing is to be literal. Name things so that someone who knows nothing about the project will understand what it is. This overrides all other rules.<br />
I'd rather have a wall named <i>92 stud wall with 13 plasterboard both sides and 75mm insulation </i> than named <i>PSI03</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you have these three features, a clear structure, minimal abbreviation, and literal descriptions, your naming system will be understandable just through examples. </div>
<div>
See if you can understand how this wall naming scheme works:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>WP03_pb13/stud92+insul75/pb13</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now it could be:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>WP03_plasterbd13/steelstud92&insulation75/plasterbd13</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
and still be fine. Or even:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>WP03_13pb/insul75+stud92/pb13</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
and still be understandable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An alternative strategy is to name things after what they are for, rather than what they are. In the above example you might call the wall <i>Standard Internal Partition Wall</i>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
This works on very simple projects or at the beginning during early design, but I find it becomes difficult to manage once a project gets more complex. It becomes hard for all modellers to consistently name things. For similar wall types you could end up with names like <i>Standard Internal Partition Wall 1</i>, <i>Standard Internal Partition Wall Level 4</i>, or <i>Standard Internal Partition Wall Dean's office</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That said some elements are best named after what they represent. If Line Styles are named that way you can safely make global changes as well as select all being used for the same purpose. Use model lines named <i>Control Joints</i> for all representations of Control Joints and you can globally change their appearance, turn them off in specific views, and select them all in one go.<br />
<br />
For a more detailed discussion on naming see my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/the-nature-of-naming.html" target="_blank">The Nature of Naming</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
Management Strategies</h3>
This is all fine in theory but how can cleanliness be managed?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Office BIM Manual</h4>
Obviously a comprehensive BIM manual easily accessible to all users is critical. <br />
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that can be named must have a defined strategy on how to name it. <br />
A BIM manual HAS to be on-line, and searchable. A dump of separate PDFs doesn't work. A paper manual you might as well hang in the toilet because it will get more use there.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Office Standard Templates</h4>
Good, up to date template files for your BIM software of choice are very valuable. It is impractical to think it is possible to pre-load them with every element that might be used, or that it is possible to restrict modellers to using only pre-approved elements.<br />
What is practical is to provide a few examples of every kind of element named to conform with your office standard. If that standard follows the principles above them just seeing the names should provide modellers with enough information to understand and mimic them when naming new elements.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Don't forget Designers</h4>
When people think of office manuals they invariably assume it is a documentation manual. Yet it is at the design stage when models get really messy. And it is usually designers, (or clueless graduates), who originally set projects up. <br />
<br />
It is important to include strategies that modellers can use during design, and VERY clear instructions on how to set projects up. <br />
<br />
It is best to assume designers will be messy and attempt to minimise rather than prevent. A rule of being literal gives them freedom to do things on the fly while still providing meaningful names. Getting them to name things after what they are for will have more success than forcing them to comply with specific rules. Remember the aim is to have an understandable model, not a model that strictly follows particular rules.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Standards</h4>
BIM newbies and wannabes will by now be saying "don't you just follow the standards". Well, you might if any of them were actually usable.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, l don't have a problem with following standards, it is just that I have yet to come across anything adequate. Some are just silly like the naming standard in the <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/nbs-bim-object-standard-where-is-impact.html" target="_blank">NBS National BIM Object Standard</a>. Some are archaic and are nothing more than regurgitated CAD standards. <br />
<br />
The best I've found are invariably software specific. For example the AEC UK BIM standards (<a href="https://aecuk.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">https://aecuk.wordpress.com</a>) which has Revit, ArchiCAD and other specific software standards. The ANZ Revit Standard (<a href="http://www.anzrs.org/" target="_blank">http://www.anzrs.org</a>) is also pretty good, although doesn't seem to be very active lately.<br />
<br />
So by all means have a look at public standards to see if they are useful. But keep in mind it is unlikely you will find a standard that will adequately address every naming requirement you have, so I recommend integrating the bits that are useful. Following a standard for the sake of following a standard is always a bad idea. <br />
<br />
<h4>
Automation</h4>
Geometric design and data extraction are the headline uses for Dynamo and Grasshopper. But they can also be used for model management including automated cleanup tasks. <br />
<br />
For example I've written a Dynamo routine that can extract the username of the person who created an element. One of the uses is to rename views to include the user name of who created it.<br />
Another I've created renames layered elements like walls with what materials they are made from.<br />
<br />
There are also model checking softwares and add-ins. The open source Revit Model Checker (<a href="http://www.biminteroperabilitytools.com/modelchecker" target="_blank">http://www.biminteroperabilitytools.com/modelchecker</a>) is quite good, if a bit clunky.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Solbri is a dedicated model checker but the overhead of setting up checks and having to export to a different format for checking tends to kills its ROI.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Auditing</h4>
Of course regular auditing is vital. The trick to make auditing work is to not make it too onerous. It is better to do a manageable audit that might miss some things than a comprehensive one that rarely gets done. <br />
<br />
Audits should be treated as an active management tool done while work is being undertaken rather than an after the fact tick the box exercise that is too late to be helpful.<br />
A regular quick look over view and type names in a model with some quiet words of advice will be more beneficial than creating a 20 page audit report at the beginning and end of a project.<br />
<br />
I'm a fan of getting those doing the work to do the checking and report the results. This makes them more responsible for mistakes and gives them an incentive to avoid them. One way to do this is to ask for regular schedules that demonstrate the model is clean. <br />
<br />
<h3>
The Stature of Cleanliness</h3>
Just like a real worksite one of the biggest issues is getting everyone to take cleanliness seriously; that it is not a low priority, that "I didn't have time" is not a valid excuse.<br />
<br />
It is important that it is appreciated that a messy model is an indicator of incompetence that leads to mistakes and inefficiencies and ultimately loss of profitability. <br />
<br />
That means those at the top have to take it seriously as well and make cleaning up models, keeping them clean, and checking they are clean a part of everyone's job description, even if they do not directly use models.<br />
<br />
Directors responsible for a project need to ask whether models are clean;<br />
Project leads need to be confident their project models are clean;<br />
BIM managers must regularly audit or oversee auditing all models;<br />
Model manager must actively clean their model;<br />
Those working in models must follow standards and protocols. <br />
<br />
Assuming the BIM Manager is solely responsible for cleanliness will never be enough.<br />
Although appointing a dedicated BIM Safety Officer is perhaps a step too far.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh39voapK1UAZ_MenOHbyI6iPh911yvKTXNJ16G678Qz7DBsQDxjwBPr39Y8FOqyCDFFJwQSwfdkv0t_DtoezoxjlbYj2zcYQTd-4RegBgfPIITT55cRzinMrDNlAWCZjWSa7VFrh38y2hb/s1600/safety_officer.Sign.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh39voapK1UAZ_MenOHbyI6iPh911yvKTXNJ16G678Qz7DBsQDxjwBPr39Y8FOqyCDFFJwQSwfdkv0t_DtoezoxjlbYj2zcYQTd-4RegBgfPIITT55cRzinMrDNlAWCZjWSa7VFrh38y2hb/s1600/safety_officer.Sign.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-16766709078353530672017-02-28T19:05:00.000+11:002017-02-28T19:05:44.690+11:00The Axioms of BIMBIM can seem complicated at times, but is it really?<br />
Certainly BIM processes and procedures can end up being complicated, just try and and understand some of the standards that are being pushed.<br />
<br />
If only there was a way to cut through the guff, to have a simple set of principles that could be applied in any situation where BIM is at issue.<br />
<br />
Like in Mathematics. Mathematics is all about logic, but that logic has to be based on something, has to start somewhere. This is where Axioms come in. An Axiom is "<i>a self-evident truth that requires no proof</i>". Maybe that is a step too far for BIM. But what about a "<i>universally accepted principle or rule</i>".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDiTDRGiTUFIz2hCp_9D9SU6MocjQTOSxdgieOqagI3IhUeliVAjm4YNhjBBfvJ-8LU-Vkgr2cxXqR0Un_9F6gtu0q38p3TpqFp69jTgG_hz6jm9XnJ2r3-0lo53GQ6f3Kk2mArlGsw5Fw/s1600/AxiomPointerCrop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDiTDRGiTUFIz2hCp_9D9SU6MocjQTOSxdgieOqagI3IhUeliVAjm4YNhjBBfvJ-8LU-Vkgr2cxXqR0Un_9F6gtu0q38p3TpqFp69jTgG_hz6jm9XnJ2r3-0lo53GQ6f3Kk2mArlGsw5Fw/s1600/AxiomPointerCrop.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Axioms have to be basic otherwise they are hard to apply. Euclid's first for geometry is "<i>A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.</i>", the second "<i>Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line.</i>"<br />
<br />
Could we do the same for BIM? Have some "<i>universally accepted principles.</i>"<br />
<br />
<h3>
DEFINITION of BIM</h3>
First we need to be clear about what we are talking about, what we mean by BIM.<br />
<br />
I wrote a post about this back in 2012 - <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/what-does-bim-mean-to-you.html" target="_blank">What Does BIM Mean to You?</a><br />
Hopefully by now we are beyond arguing about personal interpretations. Also back then discussion was more centered on buildings and the particular form of model used. BIM has moved on since then so I think a more universal definition is warranted. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>BIM is a generic term for anything that involves software that directly associates data with geometric information.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The term BIM is used to describe the thing - the </i>Building Information Model, <i>the process - </i>Building Information Modelling<i> and management - </i>Building Information Management<i>.</i></blockquote>
Usually BIM applies to buildings, or facilities, but may be applied to other things like infrastructure and GIS (Geographical Information System). Really anything in the built environment that has a physical form and meaningful data.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
The AXIOMS</h3>
So now we are on the same page what are the essential axioms we can use to apply to BIM topics and issues.<br />
<br />
<h3>
1. BIM can be used by anyone for anything.</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>BIM is not limited to certain purposes or particular groups.</i></blockquote>
BIM is not just for design, construction or operation. It is not just for design analysis, clash detection, facilities management. Nor is is just for buildings, infrastructure or GIS. The data in BIM models is agnostic, it doesn't care who uses it or for what purpose.<br />
It can be used to educate, to inform, in contracts, to create VR, for disaster planning, even preparing terrorist attacks (hence the need for <a href="http://www.bimplus.co.uk/news/cyber-security-threats-trigger-need-mandatory-new-/" target="_blank">PAS1192-5</a>).<br />
<br />
Allied with this is there is no theoretical limit to the type of data. If there is data that you would find useful you can add it (or pay someone to add it). Just don't expect someone else to do it for free - see Axiom 2.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
2. The BIM you do directly benefits what you do.</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If not, you are doing someone else’s work for them.</i></blockquote>
The reason you use BIM software and processes is to improve the efficiency and quality of the work you do and are responsible for.<br />
<br />
If you don't think you are, apply Axiom 1 - BIM can be used for anything, and work out how it could benefit what you do.<br />
<br />
This Axiom is not just about personal gain. This is an important aspect of BIM. Processes where each participant is benefiting will always be more robust, have greater take up, and longevity.<br />
<br />
But more importantly it is critical participants only work within their area of expertise and responsibility. Architect's should not use BIM to do structural analysis. Design professionals and contractors should not be responsible for providing data that is specifically structured for FM purposes.<br />
Providing data to others is fine, but providing data that is fit for someone else's purpose is a step too far.<br />
And unnecessary. Structured data is accessible no matter how it is structured. Standards may help if those standards are adequate, but lack of standards does not make it an impossible task.<br />
<br />
Contractors should be responsible for extracting the data they need for construction from design consultants data, FM consultants should be responsible for extracting the data they need for operations from contractor's data, realtors responsible for extracting the data they need for sales from FM data, etc...<br />
<br />
So if you find yourself in a situation where what you are doing is of no benefit to what you do, you are within your rights to say no, - we don't do that, or demand to be paid to do it.<br />
<br />
Conversely, if you are doing it for your own purposes and someone else is benefiting from it, you give them free access to it, after all it is not costing you anything.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
3. BIM replaces or enhances something you already do.</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>BIM is something you do instead of other less efficient and less accurate methods.</i></blockquote>
If you are following Axiom 2 - you are using BIM for your own benefit, you will be using it to do things you were already responsible for.<br />
<br />
You don't draw in Autocad AND model in ArchiCAD, you don't manually create a schedule in Excel AND create the schedule in Revit.<br />
You don't do a structural design by linking an analysis package to your model AND calculate it all out with pen, paper and calculator.<br />
You don't use a BIM model and a total station to set out ceiling hangers AND measure them out with a measuring tape.<br />
You don't have a room full of drawings & folders AND have an integrated FM database.<br />
<br />
This also applies to management. There may be a new position called BIM Manager, but it isn't a new profession. It's a manager who uses BIM to do the things managers do already.<br />
<br />
BIM is a tool to get things done. It is not a thing in itself. If you are doing BIM for no measurable purpose you are wasting your time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
4. BIM is not possible without BIM capable software.</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>BIM is fundamentally a technology of a particular type of computer software.</i></blockquote>
BIM capable software is software that, as a minimum, can store and manipulate geometric information and associate data to that geometry. Software that only does geometry (CAD, SketchUp, Rhino, etc) or just manages data (databases, spreadsheets, etc) are not BIM capable.<br />
<br />
BIM is often described as a process, but it is a process of managing BIM capable software. It may involve only managing the output and exchange of that software, but to do that effectively you need an understanding of the abilities and limitations of the software involved. BIM Management ignorant of software issues is nothing more than management by wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
There are some who think mandating "OpenBIM" means software becomes irrelevant.<br />
OpenBIM may be developed by committees with high ideals, but it is still software (or software format), it still has a fixed form that people have to try and use to get things done. BIM softwares that are used in the real world have to be able to interact with "OpenBIM" formats or BIM processes will not be possible.<br />
<br />
When it comes to BIM you always have to consider the impact of the softwares being used.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
5. BIM works best with Collaboration.</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Sharing your data means others share their data with you.</i></blockquote>
BIM works best if your combine it with collaboration with others, but you can still use BIM without any collaboration.<br />
<br />
An architect can use Revit to just create drawings and schedules but never give the model to anyone. The architect is still doing BIM, benefiting from it by being more efficient and accurate, even though there is no collaboration.<br />
<br />
If you think about it BIM can't <i>just</i> be collaboration. If none of the collaborators produce or can offer BIM, how can there be any collaboration? There is nothing to collaborate with.<br />
<br />
Collaboration is a secondary consideration. Establishing what BIM will be done (Axiom 1), that there is a benefit (Axiom 2), and that it is doing something that it is required because it is already being done (Axiom 3), has to be done first.<br />
<br />
But once that happens collaboration is definitely low hanging fruit.<br />
<br />
Consider the example above. If the architect share their model with, say, a quantity surveyor who uses the model to measure quantities, the architect will get costing advice much quicker and more often (as will the client), leading to the architect wasting less time on abortive work.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT ABOUT...</h3>
Of course there are other considerations than just the Axioms when looking at BIM.<br />
Some examples I've seen are:<br />
<ul>
<li>Whether the effort or expense is worth the outcome.</li>
<li>Whether it is possible with current technology and skill sets.</li>
<li>Whether there enough time in the program for implementation.</li>
</ul>
<br />
But these are not principles about BIM, they are problems to overcome.<br />
<ul>
<li>If it is not worth the effort, how could the effort be reduced, or the outcome enhanced to make it more valuable? </li>
<li>If it is not currently possible when will it be possible, or what is possible now, what is practical now?</li>
<li>Compare how much extra time is required against the benefits. Can the program be adjusted to allow more time upfront?</li>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
USING THE AXIOMS</h3>
So next time you are in a discussion about BIM keep in mind the BIM Axioms, they may provide a quick answer to a silly proposition.<br />
<br />
To recap the BIM Axioms are:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>BIM can be used by anyone for anything.</li>
<li>The BIM you do directly benefits what you do.</li>
<li>BIM replaces or enhances something you already do.</li>
<li>BIM is not possible without BIM capable software.</li>
<li>BIM works best with collaboration.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
Have a go at this quiz to see how easy it is (answers below).<br />
<br />
Which axiom applies to each of the following:<br />
<br />
A. You wouldn't use BIM for that.<br />
B. It's your job to give me the data I need.<br />
C. BIM is a whole lot of extra work.<br />
D. It doesn't matter which software you use for BIM.<br />
E. We can't use BIM because the contract doesn't have collaboration clauses (is not IPD).<br />
<br />
<br />
(A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5)<br />
<br />
Supplementary quiz for the dedicated:<br />
<br />
A. You can do BIM with CAD software.<br />
B. It is extra work to get our schedules out of Revit.<br />
C. The primary purpose of BIM is for facility operations.<br />
D. We can't use BIM because there is no BIM Execution Plan.<br />
E. COBie doesn't cost anything.<br />
<br />
<br />
(A=4, B=3, C=1, D=5, E=2)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-11277648181743536042016-12-06T07:27:00.000+11:002016-12-06T07:27:37.653+11:00Where is BIM in EducationRecently I went on-line and had a look at the subject offerings of the four university level design schools in my home town. I wanted to see what they were offering in terms of BIM education, and by extension what could I expect from new graduates. <br />
<br />
I could not find any mention of BIM at all - not a thing.<br />
<br />
Mind you there was little or no detail information on individual subjects, so there may be BIM buried somewhere. Still, I wonder how a prospective student who wants to get a good grounding in BIM chooses where to go.<br />
<br />
But I get the distinct feeling there is no, or only cursory BIM. You can tell from the subject offerings.<br />
<br />
The "Computing" major at one school is described as for:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"... students who want to develop strong professional capabilities in programming and development of digital artifacts. You will develop strong technical skills in the areas of media computation, data manipulation and visualisation, interaction design, and usability."</blockquote>
Subjects include Calculus, Algebra, WEB technology and Graphics and Computation. Nothing about virtual construction or building data management.<br />
<br />
Another major, "Digital Technologies" has:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"a special focus on digital media artefacts such as web-based media, mobile media, and interactive media."</blockquote>
Again, nothing remotely like BIM. Although this major is no doubt useful for presenting "artist's impressions" digitally. Which is, apparently, quite useful for marketing. I'm surprised they don't have social media in there. Perhaps they haven't caught up with that yet, after all its only been around for 12 years.<br />
<br />
Another subject at another school, "Design Communications (Digital)" equates CAD, BIM and graphic softwares as achieving equal outcomes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"... students will be asked to work through 3 software packages: AutoCAD, Revit Architecture and Photoshop."</blockquote>
which is not surprising because the expected outcome are drawings and geometric models:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Computation and representation; 2 and 3 dimensional computer models of forms – solids, surfaces; number – dimensions, text; geometry – point, line, plane; scale – proportion, composition, reproduction; and material – hatching, texture, shade. Navigation and scale, perspective and point of view; ordering and referencing drawings, simple rendering and lighting." </blockquote>
There is no appreciation that Revit can do so much more than merely create drawings. The depressing thing is this subject is flagged as a <a href="http://codebim.com/curriculum-resources/unisa/comp-2029arch-2053/" target="_blank">BIM subject</a>, presumably because it includes Revit.<br />
<br />
Some schools even have subjects like "Drawing Studio" and "Architectural Drawing". I can't help feeling that there is this belief in academia that the core skill required for architects is to understand drawing conventions. Drawing may be useful, but surely it is just one of the many tools now available to communicate a design to others.<br />
Of more concern is their belief that the sole use for digital technology is to do drawings, whether archaic technical drawings from CAD, or 3D rendered "artists impressions".<br />
The idea that computers could be used to mimic reality, to create virtual architecture, seems to have bypassed the practice of teaching in academia.<br />
<br />
<h3>
ACADEMIA is ANTI-BIM</h3>
The lack of BIM could just be the conservatism of universities, a lack of awareness of anything new. Or the belief that anything new, while worthy of research, doesn't apply to them.<br />
<br />
But it seems deeper than that. BIM software is actively resisted.<br />
<br />
I came across a blog post at revitpure.com, <a href="http://revitpure.com/blog/should-architecture-students-use-revit" target="_blank">Should Architecture Students use Revit?</a> It spoke of the US but resonates with what I see in my home town. Some quotes from architecture students:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The professor who runs the second year is pretty anti-Revit for her students"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Some professors strictly forbid it. [...] They did mark down projects that would use the base Revit doors, windows and railings."</blockquote>
I didn't realise architecture involved the designing of custom doors, windows and railings. I though it involved the arrangement of spaces, form composition and satisfaction of user requirements (among other things).<br />
<br />
The difference between a building drawn with SketchUP, Rhino or 3D Max and one modelled with Revit or Archicad is that the latter is a closer representation of an actual buildable building, while the former is just a representation of an idea.<br />
Now sometimes a representation of an idea is all that is required. It depends on what is being taught, and what is being assessed. And I can understand the argument that BIM software can sometimes get in the way.<br />
Students obviously have limited skill sets, they can't learn everything at once. So a choice has to be made. Either let them explore concepts and ideas and then teach them how to turn them into buildings, or teach them the skills they will require (the craft) first, and then let them explore concepts and ideas that they can apply their craft to.<br />
In the first case you would initially ban BIM software, in the second you would initially accept boring designs with "base Revit doors, windows and railings".<br />
Most schools use the first method, because concepts and ideas are fun, and they don't want to put new students off. Which is fine. The problem is they don't seem to get around to properly teach the craft of architecture, how to turn an idea into a buildable building.<br />
<br />
It might be argued BIM is only suitable for advanced students, those in upper years or doing a masters. But the offerings in postgraduate courses are limited to parametric design, including at one school "designing sonic spaces".<br />
The problem is parametric design is not necessarily, and rarely, BIM. Although it is kind of BIM, it uses associated data just like BIM, it is not necessarily BIM - a representation of a buildable building. It maybe of just planes, it may not be supported, how it integrates with the rest of building may be unresolved. A whole lot of other stuff has to be done to turn an algorithmic design into a piece of architecture or a real structure that is buildable.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is BORING</h3>
Let's face the elephant in the room - BIM is boring.<br />
<br />
After all, BIM is just another way of doing things that have always been done.<br />
<br />
Sure BIM does things a little better - once you know how to use it. Like being quicker, reducing errors and leaving fewer things unresolved. But surely these things can be done just by being more competent, being more careful, spending a bit more time, by "talking to each other more". Why learn (or teach) a whole new way of doing things for such an unexciting outcome?<br />
<br />
<br />
Yes, BIM, in itself, is boring. The softwares are complex and take time to master. Dealing with rows and rows of data is boring. Having to think about how high things are, what level they are on, what a wall is constructed of when all you want to do is a plan is tedious. Not being able to use a window or a piece of joinery as a door is annoying.<br />
<br />
But there is a pay off.<br />
<br />
When you use BIM software to model you are creating a building. Not a real building mind you, a virtual building, but still a building. When you use CAD or 3D modelling software you are only creating drawings or geometric models, a representation of what a building might look like. With BIM it is what it will actually look like. Much more exciting. Something I would have thought valuable in an educational context.<br />
<br />
I don't understand why educationists haven't jumped on BIM as way of teaching. Take architecture; using it as a tool to show students how buildings fit together, as a way of assessing what a student's design will actually look like as a building (rather than what they imagine it would look like). Likewise structural design; BIM can link analysis with a model of structural elements directly. Change either and the effects are immediately obvious. Similarly for MEP. Surely that is a fantastic teaching tool.<br />
<br />
I appreciate the BIM software we have doesn't always make this that easy or that smooth a process, particularly for the engineering disciplines. But where are the people in academia that are excited about the possibilities? Excited enough to actually use it, rather than just write research papers?<br />
<br />
<h3>
HOW BAD IS IT?</h3>
The four schools in my town is not a big sample so I did a bit of research looking at papers on BIM Education. It is quite depressing.<br />
<br />
Many are just surveys. Australia based NatSpec have an annually updated report, The <a href="http://bim.natspec.org/bim-rnd/177-natspec-international-bim-education-report" target="_blank">International BIM Education report</a> which is a compilation of responses from "a global group of parties". It is a compilation of expert opinions rather than a comprehensive survey, but provides a good over-view.<br />
<br />
A recent paper (May 2016), <a href="http://www.itcon.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?2016_17" target="_blank">BIM Curriculum Design in Architecture, Engineering and Construction Education: a Systematic Review</a> published by the US based <i>Journal of Information Technology in Construction</i> provides a review of published papers on BIM Education. One of its findings is that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"the number of AEC programs that offer elective BIM courses is significantly higher than programs that require BIM courses for a degree."</blockquote>
It seems academia is treating BIM as an "extra", not a core skill required by future construction professionals.<br />
<br />
Here in Australia there has been a serious attempt to progress BIM Education. Their web site <a href="http://codebim.com/" target="_blank">codeBIM.com</a> has a range of resources and the start of a systematic approach. Unfortunately it seems to be in abeyance. References are quite old, and the last active initiative was in 2010 when they had a one off grant from the federal government <a href="http://www.olt.gov.au/project-collaborative-building-design-education-using-building-information-modelling-2010" target="_blank">Office of Learning and Teaching</a>. They have their own survey of BIM education in Australian schools, but it is from 2011.<br />
The main focus of this group is (was) in the collaborative aspect of BIM, where students of different disciplines do a group project together. While a valid part of BIM education it is not the only aspect, and probably one of the most difficult to introduce due to the required coordination across departments.<br />
<br />
The feeling I got from the limited papers I read is that BIM education in academia is going backwards. Initiatives started years ago didn't develop into anything permanent, one-off pilots never seem to go anywhere.<br />
<br />
Is it just all too hard?<br />
<br />
<h3>
ASPECTS OF BIM</h3>
BIM is a broad term and means different things to different parties. To some it is the process that makes BIM, to some a container of information about a building, to others the data that can be extracted. To an architect BIM is a model, to a facilities manager it is data about equipment.<br />
Not all aspects have to be taught to the same level to everyone, although everyone should be aware of what others require.<br />
<br />
In general BIM can be divided into three broad categories:<br />
<br />
<h4>
VDC</h4>
Virtual Design & Construct is what is sounds like. BIM software is used to create a virtual building, then that virtual building is used to inform and manage construction.<br />
A Revit or ArchiCAD model is a VDC model. A CAD file is not, a 3D SketchUP or Rhino model is not. VDC models not only have data embedded in them; a door knows what its fire rating is, they also have intelligence; a door knows which wall it is in and what floor it is on.<br />
VDC models can be used for analysis. The virtual building can be tested before it is built, from thermal performance to crowd behaviour. And all this testing means designs can be optimised. Instead of just "doing a design", many alternatives can be tried and assessed to get the best outcome.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Collaboration</h4>
Collaboration is an ideal rather than a thing. The idea is that if VDC models are shared, or constructed together cooperatively, there will be greater integration of the various skill sets brought to the building by the different parties involved.<br />
Each participant incorporates their work into a VDC model so that others can use the combined information in the VDC model to inform their work.<br />
If the architect can see the mechanical engineer's ductwork in their model it is easier to ensure their ceilings accommodate them, conversely if the mechanical engineer can see the architect's ceiling and structure above they can work towards their ducts fitting within the space between them.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
BIM Management</h4>
BIM Management covers the management of BIM processes, and the management of BIM data. There is overall BIM Management, the process of coordinating all the participants "collaborating". This extends from BIM Management Plans to novel contractual arrangements like Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).<br />
BIM data management is the managing of data structures, extraction and formatting. The skills needed for estimating and facilities management, to name a few.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM ASPECTS IN EDUCATION</h3>
<h4>
BIM Management</h4>
BIM Management is probably the most advanced area of BIM education. Students are not going to be going straight into BIM Management roles on graduation so it is a 'need to know' rather than a 'need to do' subject. Economical lectures and reading assignments are generally adequate to cover it. Guest lectures by unpaid industry lobbyists even cheaper.<br />
<br />
Because it is so easy to provide there is a danger BIM Management education goes too far. Understanding esoteric standards that no-one actually uses in practice is pretty much a waste of time.<br />
As are the ravings of BIM evangelists on the Utopian future that their brand of BIM will bring.<br />
<br />
As this is the only BIM most students are exposed to it is not surprising the majority of BIM research done by postgraduates has little relationship to actual BIM use in the industry, not withstanding the unending LinkedIn requests by students and researchers to fill out BIM use surveys.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Collaboration</h4>
Typically Collaboration subjects create multi-disciplinary teams, for example students of architecture, structure and/or construction, and get them to work on a single project or task. For educators Collaboration is the least boring part of BIM, it is just like the real world the students will soon be working in.<br />
<br />
Except it is not really about BIM. Collaboration subjects can be run without BIM. There is no reason they can't use CAD, or hand drawings for that matter, and still collaborate.<br />
I suspect this is why Collaboration subjects have gained some initial traction. People ignorant of BIM can see the benefits without having to understand the BIM part of it.<br />
<br />
When BIM processes are used - sharing VDC models and data, there are BIM education aspects to it. Learning to create models others can use, and how to deal with the models of others is a necessary BIM skill. But not as fundamental as VDC.<br />
<br />
I suspect the failure of Collaboration subjects to catch on is not entirely due to logistics of coordinating the timetables of several disparate courses (the usual excuse). The lack of competently created VDC models by participants, who would have had very little education in VDC model creation, have a large part to play. Then add in the novelty of working for the first time with other disciples (these subjects are only ever run once). I'm not saying these programs were a failure, just that by themselves they seem to not have inspired enough confidence to progress BIM education.<br />
<h4>
VDC</h4>
VDC is the core of BIM. Without VDC models BIM is not possible. And no-one can fully comprehend BIM without an understanding of how VDC models work.<br />
So even if you ignore the fact that future design professionals will need VDC skills to get a job, to teach BIM you have to teach students how VDC models work, and the best way to do that is to get them involved in making VDC models.<br />
<br />
It is not about learning a particular software, any proper BIM authoring software (and there are many which claim to be but are not) will be adequate to teach the fundamentals of BIM.<br />
<br />
The problem is many in academia treat BIM authoring software as if it is another version of CAD. It is not. It is fundamentally different. CAD is so dumb BIM software can print CAD files just like it can print PDFs or paper drawings.<br />
<br />
When you teach BIM using software like Revit or ArchiCAD you are not merely instructing students on the commands required to produce lines or 3D solids, you are teaching them fundamental concepts like what a door is, that a wall is not the same as a roof, that stairs have limits on their dimensions, that if you remove a column the building will fall down.<br />
<br />
Academia has to get away from the current practice of teaching BIM authoring software to merely create drawings or geometric models. To stop churning out graphic artists and mathematicians and start producing building design professionals. Professionals with a good understanding of their craft.<br />
<br />
<h3>
HOW TO FIT BIM IN</h3>
Because VDC is so fundamental it can not be treated as an extra subject. It has to be integrated, it has to replace existing programs.<br />
<br />
Within subjects where BIM can be used in the real world the teaching of BIM processes should replace traditional processes, not merely added as an optional extra. I find it strange that academia, who should be looking to the future, use the fact that BIM is not yet currently universally used in industry as an excuse not to teach it.<br />
<br />
Anywhere that drawing or graphics is taught should be replaced with VDC subjects. "Communication", graphic and drawing subjects need to be replaced with VDC modelling where the emphasis is on creating virtual buildings rather than representations of buildings.<br />
Computer and "Digital" subjects must include skills beyond mere design generation, and the new kid on the block, Virtual Reality (VR) or Augmented reality (AR). Data management skills, using simulation and analysis, are far more useful than just being able to generate parts of an overall design, or represent your design "interactively".<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitWK8nFXAxYwpOJgCuArRaUYpLOGx-mvk3NXxW_M5uDx_Zz9pmsEhvF-RShIbdX1zPzRpxT-NpXjycFyiJFBhSQ_v6obpQ0VF6b1eh_nz7hm2stEBq1e9VQXzi1tYh7oiyrES9l19DQHVx/s1600/ArchSketch_bilbao.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitWK8nFXAxYwpOJgCuArRaUYpLOGx-mvk3NXxW_M5uDx_Zz9pmsEhvF-RShIbdX1zPzRpxT-NpXjycFyiJFBhSQ_v6obpQ0VF6b1eh_nz7hm2stEBq1e9VQXzi1tYh7oiyrES9l19DQHVx/s1600/ArchSketch_bilbao.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Frank's sketch of Bilbao</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Will that mean the end of drawing? No. Drawing is still, and will always be, the quickest way for a person to communicate an idea. But to turn that idea into a building, into Architecture, the quickest way is to model it as a building. Not do more drawings.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnAO_lBaQd-upu0DqZVlv7w4qMV_1r3Eby-CDE_IhgIJnf-tctgv-zviCLCXJeUvsRwGFr-Jcba4pOkiqHPponl0xusNYDLk6vS50prATkasCGH5kM6sUwGfWTckhVJefrhHXojbQspF3Y/s1600/ArchSketch_Bilbao3D_500px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnAO_lBaQd-upu0DqZVlv7w4qMV_1r3Eby-CDE_IhgIJnf-tctgv-zviCLCXJeUvsRwGFr-Jcba4pOkiqHPponl0xusNYDLk6vS50prATkasCGH5kM6sUwGfWTckhVJefrhHXojbQspF3Y/s1600/ArchSketch_Bilbao3D_500px.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bilbao as a model</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
VDC software doesn't mean the death of drawing. These softwares easily create drawings. They may be too information rich for some, but they are still drawings.<br />
I'm old enough to have used log tables and slide rulers in exams. By necessity exams questions had to be kept simple because of the time calculations took. Now calculators are allowed and questions can be much more sophisticated, and by extension more complex concepts can be taught. VDC software does a similar thing. By removing the need to draw everything more time can be spent on design issues and analysis. Letting software create the output also standardises results across students, making it easier to assess design ability rather than graphic skills.<br />
<br />
<h3>
USING BIM FOR EDUCATION</h3>
As I touched on above, I don't understand why educators are not considering using BIM processes to extend and improve what they do.<br />
The same model checking and BIM processes we in the industry use can be used to assess student's work.<br />
<br />
If students submit a VDC model then:<br />
<ul>
<li>it can be viewed from any angle, it can be cut and sliced to easily check for completeness and analyse how it works. </li>
<li>schedules can be created to check the brief has been met: area schedules, room schedules, efficiencies, etc. Also code requirements: ventilation, daylight, minimum door widths, fire rating etc. </li>
<li>model checking can be used to assess code compliance, realistic spatial allowances (e.g. stair widths, wall thickness, structural and duct sizes), etc.</li>
<li>analysis used to check energy use, daylight and sunlight penetration, fire performance, crowd behaviour, etc. </li>
</ul>
<br />
Just like in the real world use of BIM can improve the quality of student's work by making deficiencies more obvious, and as a bonus a lot of checking tedium can be dispensed with.<br />
<br />
This is what I don't get. Academia, for example, will do research papers on <a href="http://www.academia.edu/10626797/A_Guideline_to_utilize_auto_code_checking_capabilities_of_BIM_Applications_simultaneously_in_the_design_cycle_of_Building_construction" target="_blank">Singapore's use of BIM for automating building code compliance</a>, or even <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264150962_Development_of_Check-list_for_BIM_Based_Architectural_Design_Quality_Check" target="_blank">BIM Based Architectural Design Quality Checking</a>, but it doesn't occur to them to do it for themselves - to use BIM to automate their own processes.<br />
<br />
<br />
The secret of BIM is you use it for your own purposes, you don't specifically do it to benefit others, because just the act of creating BIM means you create something that others can use.<br />
For BIM to work it has to be evolutionary - each step has to produce immediate benefit for it to progress. That starts with education. Use BIM for educational purposes and the students of that education will be BIM proficient. There would be no need for separate "BIM education".<br />
<br />
For BIM to take hold in academia what we need now are some trailblazers to show how BIM can benefit the needs of education. <br />
<br />
And for pity's sake stop bugging us with industry BIM surveys, spend some time looking in your own backyard.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-38225741099379379852016-09-30T13:21:00.000+10:002016-09-30T13:28:26.542+10:00Making BIM Work: Quality ModelsBIM processes only work if there is something those processes can act upon.<br />
No BIM models, no process.<br />
And quality matters: without good quality models no matter how good BIM processes or standards are it will be extremely difficult for anyone to do anything useful.<br />
<br />
Pretty basic stuff, but all too often ignored.<br />
<br />
Ignored because to ensure these thing happen action has to occur at the very, very, beginning of a project. When each design consultant is signed up, because they are the BIM authors, the ones who will be creating the BIM models.<br />
Ignored because owners assume BIM authors will produce adequate BIM models as part of their normal service, even when the contract deliverables are only drawings, schedules and specifications.<br />
<br />
Now, one day this will hopefully change. Consultant agreements will by default contain common, widely understood BIM requirements. Consultants themselves will be familiar and comfortable with BIM software and what is necessary for quality BIM models.<br />
<br />
But at present, pretty much everywhere, this is not the case. And it is not going to change if we don't start addressing this issue directly.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why is there a Problem with Models?</h3>
The reason it is so difficult to get quality BIM models from design consultants is that they think their job is, for architects, to produce drawings, for engineers, to produce diagrams. So they use their software, whether BIM or not, to only produce drawings. Also they generally don't use their BIM software to produce schedules. As they see it their deliverable is a paper schedule, maybe an Excel spreadsheet. So why use your drawing software?<br />
<br />
All this is because drawings have traditionally been their tangible deliverable, and is still the main contractual deliverable even in notionally "BIM" projects. Due in part because the reality is that drawings are still the legal documents that contractors use to construct from.<br />
Mind you there are good reasons why drawings are used for legal evidence. All information on drawings is visible and unchangeable. Explanatory text can be included, status, revision sequence and issued date are all clearly displayed. It is very hard for someone to say "I didn't see it".<br />
One day BIM models may be able to do these things, or things that achieve the same outcomes. There are examples around that do some of these things, or something similar, like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K_nQGptF84" target="_blank">Bentley's 'Hypermodel'</a> functionality, or the open source <a href="https://github.com/BuildingSMART/BCF-XML/tree/master/Documentation" target="_blank">BIM Collaboration Format</a> (BCF).<br />
<br />
But presently there are no common, robust, methods that match the certainty of drawings.<br />
So are architects and engineers justified in using their BIM software to just produce drawings?<br />
<br />
<h4>
BIM Software is Designed to produce Drawings</h4>
The softwares we use today to do BIM were not originally designed to do BIM. They were designed to produce drawings.<br />
When ArchiCAD came out in 1987 the way it worked was that the building was modelled in 3D up to a point. Once it was decided to move to drawings, plans, elevations and sections were created as separate files from the model and worked over to turn them into drawings.<br />
This is a common approach. SketchUp does the same with its separate <a href="https://help.sketchup.com/en/article/3000191" target="_blank">LayOut</a> program.<br />
Revit came out in 2000 with a similar functionality, except that plans, elevations and sections remained live. Everything was in the one file, so changes in the 3D model instantly appeared in all views created for drawings. But the purpose of Revit was still to create drawings.<br />
Other software now used for BIM started life as CAD programs, with gradual 3D functionality added to assist drawing production (e.g. Bentley, and the now defunct AutoDesk Architecture).<br />
<br />
BIM as we know it today came from the realisation that the integrated 3D model that these softwares produced could be used for other purposes. In practical terms BIM is what these softwares are capable of doing, despite the efforts to extend BIM into the realm of fantasy by the standards wonks and BIM evangelists (<a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/how-usable-are-bim-standards.html" target="_blank">see my previous post</a> on standards).<br />
<br />
So if you use BIM software as it is intended to be used it will produce drawings for you. There is no need to "take shortcuts" to produce convincing looking drawings. And if you use the software properly it will be BIM ready, it will not "take more time" to do BIM.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Benefits of BIM to Authors</h4>
Much is made of using BIM models for 4D (construction sequencing), 5D (quantity measuring), 6D (life-cycle management), and other 'D's. They can also be used for analysis and simulations, particularly in engineering - structural analysis, power circuits, mechanical systems etc.<br />
<br />
What is often not appreciated is that a BIM model can also be used for quality assurance (QA) purposes. Checks can be utilised that minimise design errors, that ensure the model is in fact a quality BIM model and an accurate representation of what is to be built.<br />
If all you produce are drawings and separate schedules, you can only check drawings and schedules.<br />
If your BIM models are created properly you can use the model to do the checking.<br />
<br />
If your walls contain their fire rating as data in a parameter you can colour code those walls, the same for fire rated doors, fire rated dampers etc. Which makes checking that the correct walls and doors are in the right place much quicker than trawling through multiple drawings and cross referencing schedules.<br />
<br />
If your doors contain size data you can run a model check for doors with heights or widths below minimum required values. Check concrete walls required to be fire rated to ensure their thickness achieves their rating. You get the idea, the list is endless.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbo6W-hJNlVuwkgKJihWEfVOjv1e8gh51s8Ukuv2oZobMS6sQq6Jm09v62RS7qZ03AV0p-QFPdQQA0JpuSsqfWnl3apjSpZ2vxGYazX8AvNUcH97ryLMWy2p3kHBcLbno_epQjMwvQqvbH/s1600/BadModel03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbo6W-hJNlVuwkgKJihWEfVOjv1e8gh51s8Ukuv2oZobMS6sQq6Jm09v62RS7qZ03AV0p-QFPdQQA0JpuSsqfWnl3apjSpZ2vxGYazX8AvNUcH97ryLMWy2p3kHBcLbno_epQjMwvQqvbH/s1600/BadModel03.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Revit Warnings</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
These checks can be manual (e.g. use Filters in Revit or the free add-in <a href="https://apps.autodesk.com/RVT/en/Detail/Index?id=5056644120649615847" target="_blank">Color Splasher</a> to color-code views by object parameter), or automated (e.g. Revit's inbuilt <i>Warnings</i>, <a href="http://www.biminteroperabilitytools.com/modelchecker/" target="_blank">Autodesk Model Checker for Revit</a>, <a href="http://www.solibri.com/products/solibri-model-checker/" target="_blank">Solibri IFC model checker</a>).<br />
<br />
And because drawings and schedules come directly from the model they will be correct if the model is correct.<br />
<br />
When I say correct, I mean correct information. Letting software create your drawings and schedules means forgoing some control over graphic representation. But then BIM authors are architects and engineers, not graphic artists. The question they need to ask is not does this drawing look "neat", but can it be misinterpreted? Will the contractor build the wall using the wrong material or in the wrong place because the lineweight is not exactly right, the hatch pattern doesn't align perfectly? Will they mistake a grid for something else because its head doesn't perfectly align with other grids?<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that it is possible to be much more thorough when checking a model as compared to checking drawings and schedules. It can also be done much quicker, especially if standardised automated model checking processes are implemented alongside manual checking. All this leads to less errors in documents, meaning less time wasted dealing with mistakes, both internally and on site.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYHoD88cVFHfXw7zxNM_ezSvBqwnBh-DQBNLbUycIBdUelJfC-z5qkT-DVB_wYN2rP86XvR3Ao_Ez-IHGpzMMjxcuqN-U3JEMO3kD5pc6BGN9NGuLCzf2IMtPvGbxBCTfl3k740azQDkk-/s1600/BadModel01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYHoD88cVFHfXw7zxNM_ezSvBqwnBh-DQBNLbUycIBdUelJfC-z5qkT-DVB_wYN2rP86XvR3Ao_Ez-IHGpzMMjxcuqN-U3JEMO3kD5pc6BGN9NGuLCzf2IMtPvGbxBCTfl3k740azQDkk-/s1600/BadModel01.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Looks OK in 2D plans and elevations, but an on-site mistake waiting to happen</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is no real excuse for design consultants to NOT produce good quality BIM models. They should be doing as part of their normal duty of care.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why won't People Share?</h3>
Producing good quality BIM Models is one thing, but if these models are not shared BIM processes will fail.<br />
<br />
The comments above about checking the model instead of drawings and schedules extends to other people's work. It is much easier and quicker to see if structure is aligning with architecture if both models are linked together and viewed in 3D. And there are softwares that can automate this checking. Revit has a built-in clash detection ability, Naviworks and Solibiri are specialised software for doing this type of checking.<br />
<br />
Design consultants, particularly architects, generally don't like giving their native models to anyone (a topic I covered in my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/ip-it-is-not-all-yours-get-used-to-it.html" target="_blank">IP - it is not all yours, get used to it</a>). They see them as their property. The justification is that their contractual deliverables are completed drawings, schedules and specifications. BIM models are their "internal working documents".<br />
Design professionals are also generally paranoid about having their ideas stolen, which they extend to the documents they produce.<br />
And some have this view that as initial author of BIM models they have the right to total control of that model including getting paid whenever anyone makes use of it.<br />
<br />
None of these justifications are valid. They just need to get over the fact that in the 21st Century drawings are no longer their only deliverable, and that current legal protections easily extend to cover other deliverables.<br />
<br />
However there is a mistaken belief (and not just by design consultants) that handing over models means providing an untouched copy of the model, still containing all its housekeeping and drawing creation setup. None of this is required for BIM Uses. It should be removed - as a requirement. No-one wants to trawl through someone else's rubbish, and allowing people to recreate the drawings of others is a legal minefield.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What is a Quality Model?</h3>
In simple terms by quality model I mean a model that is:<br />
<ul>
<li>Fully modelled in 3D.</li>
<li>Is modelled as it will be constructed.</li>
<li>Uses correct categories and types.</li>
<li>All objects contain data about themselves.</li>
<li>Data is consistent and coherent.</li>
</ul>
<div>
and taking into consideration the fact that drawings and schedules are contractual deliverables:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The model must match issued drawings.</li>
<li>Data in the model must match issued schedules.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is not so much about WHAT information is in the model (which most standards seem to concentrate on, including LOD descriptions like the <a href="http://bimforum.org/lod/" target="_blank">BIMforum LOD Specification</a>), but that the information that is there is complete and can be relied upon.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is where discussion of BIM becomes confused. Many believe BIM is about extra work and extra data. It is not. It is about data that is produced for normal purposes being in a consistent format.<br />
The final format doesn't even matter. If data is consistent it can be converted from one format to another. If data required for COBie exists in a model it can be converted to COBie format on export. It doesn't have to exist in the model in COBie format.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If someone wants data that is not usually created as part of your normal service then it is an extra cost. An architect may put minimum warrantee requirements in their specification, but if the owner wants the manufacturer's actual warrantee information in the architect's model that is work they would not normally do and so is an extra.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
In short a quality BIM Model is one that has been created by people doing what they normally do and using their BIM software the way it was designed to be used.<br />
<br />
Not such a big ask.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
How to Obtain Quality Models</h3>
As explained above it can't be left solely to design consultants to initiate quality models. To be fair that is not all design consultants, there are some who are very good. And not yet, one day it will become standard practice, but for now owners have to be proactive.<br />
<br />
There are two places requirements can be spelt out: - consultant engagement agreements and a project's BIM Brief.<br />
<br />
Consultant engagement agreements are better because they are contractually binding, whereas a BIM Brief may or may not be, depending on what is in consultant engagement agreements. Also the BIM Brief may not be completed before consultants are engaged (particularly if those consultants are expected to participate in creating the BIM Brief).<br />
<br />
Generally best practice is to include generic BIM model requirements in consultant engagement agreements, with specific requirements, and perhaps specific examples of good modelling practice, in the BIM Brief.<br />
<br />
It is also best practice to embed BIM requirements within consultant engagement agreements and not simply have a separate "BIM Addendum" or "Exhibit", which can lead to contradictions and perpetuates the belief that using BIM is a separate service.<br />
<br />
A good approach is to include BIM requirements in a consultant's project scope. This has the advantage of being easier to understand as a lawyer is less likely to have authored it, and can be tailored to a specific project. Consultant scope is also more likely to be available to those actually working on the project, whereas consultant engagement agreements tend to be withheld as they contain sensitive commercial information.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Current BIM Engagement Documents</h3>
A number of organisations have produced contract addendums for BIM.<br />
In the US there is the <a href="http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/referencematerial/AIAB099135" target="_blank">AIA Document E203-2013, BIM and Digital Data Exhibit</a> by the American Institute of Architects, and in the UK the <a href="http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/bim-protocol/" target="_blank">CIC/BIM Protocol</a> by the Construction Industry Council.<br />
There are also commercial documents available like the US <a href="https://www.consensusdocs.org/catalog/collaborative" target="_blank">Consensus Docs BIM Addendum</a>.<br />
<br />
None of these documents adequately address the issue of model quality. Some are better at addressing model sharing than others, but then introduce unnecessary complications. And some are simply impenetrable for normal humans, those who have to implement them.<br />
<br />
The AIA E203-2013 is more like a BIM Brief, or BIM Execution Plan, it describes BIM processes rather than modelling requirements.<br />
<br />
The CIC/BIM Protocol is mainly about sharing of models and delivery. That is if you can understand it. You would think by the 21st Century lawyers would have learnt to write understandable English. There is one sentence of 130 words with the only commas dividing up lists of items.<br />
It also has other issues that conflict with standard head consultant engagement agreements; like diluting duty of care, and adding things that may not be in it; like assuming the owner has taken ownership of everyone's IP. Read more on the limitations of the CIC/BIM Protocol in the research paper by Kings college London, <a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/research/centres/construction/Centres-Publications.aspx" target="_blank">Enabling BIM through Procurement and Contracts</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying these documents are useless or dangerous (although I'd be careful of using the CIC/BIM Protocol), but they are not enough to ensure quality BIM models.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What to put in Model Author Agreements</h3>
By Model Authors I mean anyone who is going to create BIM models. This may include design consultants, sub-contractors, construction consultants, and possibly FM consultants.<br />
<br />
I've only discussed model sharing and model quality above, but there are other issues that should be covered within contractual agreements. The minimum that an agreement should cover includes:<br />
<ul>
<li>participation in BIM planning</li>
<li>provision of adequate resources to achieve BIM</li>
<li>model sharing</li>
<li>model quality</li>
<li>model use</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
Some examples:<br />
<h4>
BIM Planning</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Project BIM Briefing Plan forms part of the building brief and must be complied with.<br />
When requested the Consultant will participate in the process to develop and update all project BIM Management Plans and will comply with these plans.<br />
When requested the Consultant will attend BIM Planning meetings, Coordination and Clash resolution meetings.</blockquote>
<h4>
Resourcing</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The consultant will provide, at their own cost, all software, hardware and training required to comply with their project BIM requirements and responsibilities.<br />
A person experienced in use of the Consultant’s main documentation software will be appointed Discipline Model Manager and be available to attend BIM meetings and address BIM and software related issues raised by other project participants.</blockquote>
<h4>
Model Sharing</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All models the Consultant creates for the project, and all exports from those models, shall be made available without restriction to all other project participants.<br />
The consultant may, and is expected to, remove all elements, options, views, imports etc. that do not contribute to issued drawings and schedules from models before issuing them. They may also remove all titleblocks, sheets and layouts used to create issued drawings.<br />
It is acknowledged that the Consultant retains Copyright of their authored models.<br />
The Consultant will respect the rights of authors of models issued to them and will not use those models, or parts of those models, for purposes not directly required by the project.<br />
The Consultant will not provide to third parties models issued to them by others without the consent of the model author.<br />
The Consultant will not print or export contract drawings or schedules from models provided to them by others. If drawings or schedules are required they must be requested from the original model author.</blockquote>
<h4>
Model Quality</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Consultant will ensure the information in issued BIM Models exactly matches information issued as drawings, schedules and other related documents. This requirement only extends to information that has been modelled or placed as parameters in model objects. (i.e. excludes 2D details and data linked to the model then used in schedules).</blockquote>
<h4>
Model Use</h4>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Consultant accepts that models issued by them will be used by others as a source of information for work the Consultant is responsible for.<br />
The Consultant will make reasonable endeavours to ensure their models are adequate for purposes others may want to use their model for. However the Consultant can reserve the right to seek compensation from others if it involves work additional to their normal service.</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Example Model Quality Requirements</h3>
To be really clear specific modelling requirements can be spelt out. They don't necessarily have to be contractual requirements, they can be presented as expectations, or examples of acceptable modelling practice. After all, we are talking about good modelling practice, things that should be done by competent professionals anyway.<br />
<br />
This list is generic enough to apply to all those who author models and the different BIM authoring software they use. It is by no means exhaustive, and can be augmented by specific requirements.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>All project participants shall use compatible software to facilitate model exchanges. If a particular software is used by multiple participants all shall use the same version and all shall keep it updated.</li>
<li>A control model shall be created for levels, grids and shared coordinates. This shall be used by all model authors to establish common baseline information.</li>
<li>Grids shall be to nearest 5mm increment apart to 10 decimal places, and shall be absolutely orthogonal to 10 decimal places, or if not orthogonal at an angle with no more than 2 decimal places (exactly 2000, not 1999.099899, nor 2000.00006789, and 90° not 89.99967°, or 32.45° not 32.453678943°).</li>
<li>Correct categories shall be used, or layers / types etc. will be named to identify the type of object. For example, beams must be modelled as beams, or identified as beams, and not as floors.</li>
<li>All model elements in authoring models shall be in the authoring BIM software format. Imported geometry of a format different from authoring software shall not be used for parts of the building the consultant is responsible for.</li>
<li>Modelling shall, where possible, match construction methods. For example walls go between floor slabs, not through them.</li>
<li>All 3D models shall be consistent with issued 2D drawings.</li>
<li>All parameter data shall match issued schedules. This includes, but is not limited to, Area schedules, Revisions, FFE, Wall types, Equipment schedules.</li>
<li>All tags and identifying marks on drawings shall match parameter data within the objects being tagged or identified.</li>
<li>Text notes shall only be used for general noting or where applicable to multiple objects. Where notes refer to individual objects tags shall be used.</li>
<li>Deliver 3D models as separate files per discipline with the same base point.</li>
<li>All 2D/3D drawings/models used as references in issued drawings shall be provided with the host file. Pathing of linked files shall be relative and not absolute.</li>
<li>When requested provide any associated databases with the models that are linked to the unique component identifiers (i.e. such as external databases for door schedules or steel part / assembly numbers). Provide information on how to access these databases.</li>
<li>When requested editable 3D geometry and data shall be issued in native authoring formats (e.g. RVT, 12da, .DWG, .DGN, Moss Genio, ASCII etc) as well as published formats (ie. .PDF, .NWC, DWF etc).</li>
<li>Regular exports shall use pre-configured settings to ensure consistency of output. For example “Export for Coordination” view / settings to show only the elements that are to be shared for coordination purposes.</li>
<li>Ensure that the exported models retain unique element identifiers (i.e. that there is a globally unique identifier associated to each element that will not be duplicated by another element in the model).</li>
<li>Ensure that all elements are modelled as individual selectable elements rather than multiple elements modelled as one element (e.g. don't model a row of columns as a single column element). Nesting or grouping where individual elements are still selectable is acceptable.</li>
<li>Where appropriate typical groups of elements can be grouped and copied around the model. There should be no groups with only one occurrence. </li>
<li>Elements, including groups and nested components, are not to be mirrored where doing so creates a different product. (e.g. a dishwasher with an outlet on the left is a different product to a dishwasher with an outlet on the right). Mirrored versions are to be a completely separate element, group or nested component than the original.</li>
<li>Main construction elements (walls, columns, slab edges etc) and setouts are to be perfectly orthogonal or at angles no greater than 2 decimal points (e.g. 31.65°).</li>
<li>All dimension entities must be rounded to the nearest 1 millimetre, no higher (or rounding errors may occur in strings of dimensions). Dimension values shall not be overridden.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For those of you who know how to use your BIM software the things listed above will be seem pretty basic and obvious. Hopefully there is nothing that you are not already doing. But sometimes the simplest thing can prevent models from being used.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_RGfUL7uXwv_MbZpyE3bq37GtO0k_sRzlq1l97qLOvrPH0eV2jNq6W_hqen-y-ygBAJKfLVd-5Vv7NI7tDpyt8OXpCmmMMzYm0mTHTaTB8fucibfDJhiKWcrVjUsVxRtHHIEjix8t3oeT/s1600/BadGrids04.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_RGfUL7uXwv_MbZpyE3bq37GtO0k_sRzlq1l97qLOvrPH0eV2jNq6W_hqen-y-ygBAJKfLVd-5Vv7NI7tDpyt8OXpCmmMMzYm0mTHTaTB8fucibfDJhiKWcrVjUsVxRtHHIEjix8t3oeT/s1600/BadGrids04.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<h3>
Summary</h3>
<ul>
<li>BIM requires quality BIM models.</li>
<li>BIM requires BIM models to be shared.</li>
<li>BIM software, if used as intended, will produce quality BIM models.</li>
</ul>
<br />
If you are a consultant or sub-contractor who authors BIM models review how you are using your BIM software. If those using it in your office are treating it as a drawing tool rather than a modelling tool then retrain them and introduce processes that ensure quality models are produced.<br />
Accept others require access to your BIM models, and when providing those models make sure they only contain information you would normally be providing anyway.<br />
<br />
If you are an owner, or contractor who engages design consultants and/or sub-contractors, review your engagement agreements and include minimum BIM and modelling requirement, and the obligation to share models. Don't rely on those you engage to do it for you unless you are certain that they will. And if they complain it will cost more find another consultant or sub-contractor that knows how to do their job properly.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-53290085184627960872016-07-25T13:32:00.000+10:002016-07-25T13:32:00.341+10:00What makes a good Office BIM Manager?Many professional design firms and construction sub-contractors are being forced to become BIM authors, with the expectation they can manage and provide BIM deliverables.<br />
They have to use BIM software, which is only efficient if it is genuinely managed. If used properly many things can be done quicker and with less error, but if not project teams can find themselves trapped in a nightmare of tedious tasks, repeating work and redundant effort. Leading to missed deadlines, error filled documentation and very unhappy clients.<br />
<br />
There is gradual appreciation of the need for the skills of an Office BIM Manager, but not much understanding of what the role entails.<br />
<br />
The role of Office BIM Manager is different from an FM or construction BIM Manager, who manage BIM coordination rather than BIM creation. Of course they are vital for BIM success, but their role, tasks and responsibilities are different.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately not all AEC firms appreciate the need for an Office BIM manager, nor understand the benefits a good Office BIM manager can bring.<br />
<br />
Often a recent graduate who is "good with computers" is given the role, or a young drafter who has recently used BIM software in their course. These people may become good BIM managers, eventually, with experience. But for now they have no understanding of the profession they work within; what core services the office provides (unless it is a drafting company drawings are not a core service), what the purpose of deliverables are (what is being communicated), and that the number of people and the time a task takes is important (to profitability and therefore their firm's future).<br />
<br />
As with any role there are those who are better at it than others. But what I see at the moment is a lack of understanding about what an Office BIM manager should be, and could be, doing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is not CAD</h3>
It has been common practice to simply change the title of CAD Manager to BIM Manager, without changing the role or responsibilities.<br />
But CAD has only ever been about drawing production. CAD can make drawing production more efficient but can do little to improve accuracy or consistency of information. Whether a drawing is hand drafted or computer generated, it is still a drawing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVvH2uaIfT5kqHNt6F1_aHdoY6w_oSafp6fxckcrty2ykr1U4D38DvVsbsBMN9TZLKvy2PVVqs1OfU8SzXv0CD-80Tqc6vrqNZm6c26MAU_3TNU_ZJ6WoKK7x3MzE1Vc0p7tIWPHeCeLlB/s1600/DRGtoCAD02_570.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVvH2uaIfT5kqHNt6F1_aHdoY6w_oSafp6fxckcrty2ykr1U4D38DvVsbsBMN9TZLKvy2PVVqs1OfU8SzXv0CD-80Tqc6vrqNZm6c26MAU_3TNU_ZJ6WoKK7x3MzE1Vc0p7tIWPHeCeLlB/s1600/DRGtoCAD02_570.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Drawing and CAD - same information, just neater</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
But you can't issue a hand drawn BIM model (or a CAD file as a BIM model for that matter).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwIDBc29rnTr0_1f2-s9ccoB3dWr2Bjgm79Vfv-gipf24U4z9nkGgn9E91hVZLuzfwuLkDbKdqUXL6JNXFNRir39LK9ZzSd26JDBimC-lOBcfkp8Yf7fYKKEu0SD41ObVWEcp5PZjw5M8R/s1600/CADvsBIM02a570.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwIDBc29rnTr0_1f2-s9ccoB3dWr2Bjgm79Vfv-gipf24U4z9nkGgn9E91hVZLuzfwuLkDbKdqUXL6JNXFNRir39LK9ZzSd26JDBimC-lOBcfkp8Yf7fYKKEu0SD41ObVWEcp5PZjw5M8R/s1600/CADvsBIM02a570.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">BIM contains more information than drawings</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Nor is there enough data in CAD for automated QA processes. CAD doesn't manage cross referencing or revisioning. You can't query a CAD file to check if any doors are lower than the minimum allowed under regulations; nor colour code fire rated and acoustic walls, as well as the doors in those walls. And CAD does little for the efficiency and accuracy of schedules, including ensuring consistency between drawings and schedules.<br />
<br />
BIM introduces new processes that CAD never had to deal with, and the traditional CAD manager was not involved in. For example QA. You can't give a BIM model directly to a senior designer for them to mark up with a red pen. QA has to be part of the BIM process itself.<br />
<br />
<div>
CAD Managers have been around for 30 or so years now, so there is a lot of experience. But not all make the transition to BIM. They can in fact be an impediment to BIM as they bastardise BIM software to implement CAD workflows and practices. Introducing complicated workarounds that achieve pointless results, sometimes making BIM processes impossible to implement.<br />
<br />
Initially this is seen as a positive. The office, particularly project leaders, designers (including engineers) and directors can all continue working as they have always done. They can can ignore BIM.<br />
But soon it becomes apparent the expense BIM software and powerful new computers the office paid for are not producing the efficiencies they were promised by the BIM evangelists. It seems to take more time to do things, not less. And the documents produced are no more accurate than they were when CAD software was used.<br />
<br />
Then the office gets hit with a BIM deliverable. The client wants Navisworks or IFC deliverables. They expect coordination to use clash detection. They expect the to be able to use the model for costing. The client has been told all this is possible if BIM is used.<br />
<br />
The office is using BIM software so made claims in their (successful) submission that they use BIM. But the BIM (CAD) Manager is now telling them it will require additional resources to deliver BIM requirements.<br />
<br />
Accusations starting flying. The client is unreasonable, the BIM <a href="http://revitrants.blogspot.com.au/" target="_blank">software is useless</a>, BIM is an unnecessary impediment forced onto the industry by inexperienced academics...<br />
<br />
But just maybe, maybe, BIM is not being managed properly.<br />
<br />
<h3>
EASY BIM</h3>
BIM software was never intended to merely produce drawings or 3D models. It was intended to provide a single resource for documenting - explaining and communicating - a designed solution.<br />
If you are only using it to produce drawings you are using a fraction of its capabilities.<br />
<br />
Much is made of external BIM requirements; owners using BIM for facilities management, contractors using it for clash avoidance, estimators using it for costing. But there are a lot of BIM capabilities that can be utilised internally, within the office that authors it.<br />
<br />
And here is the secret to BIM - if you use BIM yourself, for your own purposes, it will also satisfy external BIM requirements.<br />
<br />
If your schedules come from the BIM model then there is sufficient information for owner's FM, if you model in 3D it is suitable for clash detection, if you include materials for tagging and scheduling it is suitable for costing.<br />
<br />
That is not to say owners and contractors won't still make unreasonable demands.<br />
<br />
Although the data for a COBie deliverable for FM may be within your model, creating the COBie output is not part of designer's core work so is extra. Modelling every bolt and nut, every penetration smaller than 25mm, or concrete construction pours is unreasonable. Including the Quantity Surveyor's cost codes in your model is you doing their work for them.<br />
<br />
But if all your core deliverables are being produced using BIM processes these extras are easy to identify, and to justify as extra.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM AS OPPORTUNITY</h3>
Another thing about BIM software is that is was not designed to produce BIM outputs for others. They were designed to increase the efficiency and accuracy of the user.<br />
BIM wasn't on anyone's radar when ArchiCAD was developed in the 1980's, even when Revit was developed in the late 1990's BIM wasn't talked about (Revit is an amalgam of "Revise it" - software to make revising a design easy). BIM became the <i>rigeur de jour</i> only after a critical mass of users existed and the collaborative possibilities began to be explored (and AutoDesk, then buildingSMART, started using it as a marketing tool).<br />
<br />
So at its core the BIM software you have is designed to make your work more efficient and with less error (unlike BIM standards - but that's <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/nbs-bim-object-standard-where-is-impact.html" target="_blank">another story</a>).<br />
<br />
But software is just a tool (or in the case of BIM software a suite of tools). Tools used incorrectly or inappropriately will not perform as promised on the box, and can be downright dangerous.<br />
And it is not just the tool that needs to be used properly, the environment it is used in must be appropriate. Using a chainsaw while on the top rung of a ladder sitting in a muddy puddle on the side of a hill can be catastrophically inefficient. Like using the wrong tool for the circumstances:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO58DyruxtoNUycFncuNvrCqZkiK8wQXGwX-uAESouGDPFchjWwVqUc1giOH2Dbtpk_Ye4bxND_wj6cWkz4bmFkL_9LRun167De5WLo6CKJ0b2F2j2pq2cNsp1t2qu1SDfTFq_8Br0e-hQ/s1600/Saw02.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img alt="handing a man hanging from a branch a saw." border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO58DyruxtoNUycFncuNvrCqZkiK8wQXGwX-uAESouGDPFchjWwVqUc1giOH2Dbtpk_Ye4bxND_wj6cWkz4bmFkL_9LRun167De5WLo6CKJ0b2F2j2pq2cNsp1t2qu1SDfTFq_8Br0e-hQ/s1600/Saw02.jpg" title="" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Just as it is for BIM software used within an environment designed for CAD.<br />
<br />
An opportunity often overlooked is to take advantage of what BIM software can do. How the power of BIM software can be leveraged to make your office more efficient. To do more with less, to offer more services, to produce a better product.<br />
<br />
A good Office BIM Manager doesn't just have technical knowledge of how the software works, they organise its use to improve office work practices and work flows. They mould the environment the software operates within.<br />
<br />
This means a good Office BIM manager must be involved in more than just technical support. They must also be involved in advising management. And not just in things like the office "CAD Manual", training, hardware and software selection. They need to be included in resource allocation, task allocation, deliverables scope, deliverables timetable, consultant appointment, consultant coordination, and most importantly <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_assurance" target="_blank">QA</a> (Quality Assurance).<br />
<br />
In short an Office BIM manager should be viewed as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_information_officer" target="_blank">CIO</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer" target="_blank">CTO</a>, not head of software support.<br />
And an Office BIM manager's <a href="http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/keyperfindic.htm" target="_blank">KPI</a> should include measurable efficiency and quality gains within the office.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT DOES A GOOD OFFICE BIM MANGER DO?</h3>
An Office BIM manager does the usual things, for example;<br />
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Supervise technical teams and provide project support as necessary.</li>
<li>Assist Project Directors on technical delivery.</li>
<li>Development/Management of the BIM standards, protocols and templates.</li>
<li>Liaison and consulting across IT teams, systems administrators, clients and contractors. </li>
<li>BIM training and compliance for junior members of the team.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
but what a does a "good" Office BIM manager do?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager understands BIM.</span><br />
<ul>
<li>Treats the model as a real world representation rather than a 2D representation.</li>
<li>Leverages BIM models as a communication tool both between those working in a model, and the recipients of the output of that model.</li>
<li>Recognises BIM models are created by a team of people working together, not individuals performing tasks.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager structures a team to leverage BIM.</span><br />
<ul>
<li>Ensures no-one works in a silo.</li>
<li>Sets team roles based on responsibility, not tasks.</li>
<li>Forces people to take ownership; make them responsible for complete, not partial, work. <br />(e.g. the person responsible for modelling walls is also responsible for wall tagging, wall details and wall schedules).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager is realistic about the capabilities of their workforce.</span>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Doesn't expect people employed for their expertise and skill in building to also be experts at using particular software. <br />(The reality is architects, engineers and construction professionals will never be fully proficient at the software they use).</li>
<li>Tailors work practices to the abilities of those who do the actual work. <br />(Don't put someone in charge of facades if they struggle with simple tasks like wall creation).</li>
<li>Doesn't try and get designers to use particular software if it makes their primary task - designing, less efficient. <br />(Getting designers to provide hand drawn sketches to those modelling is usually more efficient than getting designers to model properly).</li>
<li>Doesn't think "more training" is the only solution.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager recognises one size doesn't fit all.</span>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Retains flexible workflows so unusual situations can be accommodated and innovative work practices are not stifled.</li>
<li>Doesn't enforce "universal standards".<br />(an approach that is fundamentally flawed; it is not possible to predict every possible permutation of what needs to be done on every project).</li>
<li>Supports different work practices for individual projects based on complexity of the project and ability of staff working on it.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager involves themselves in real projects.</span>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Maintains skills and intimate knowledge of how the office operates by actively engaging in projects. </li>
<li>Is involved in setting up every project in the office.</li>
<li>Periodically audits all projects.</li>
<li>Steps in when required to assist, and uses it as an opportunity for training others.</li>
<li>But NEVER works full time on a single project.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager doesn't merely react to specific requests, they question those requests.</span>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Assesses a request against the real world outcome it is trying to achieve.</li>
<li>Offers solutions that are workflow and work method based, not just technical solutions.</li>
<li>Gauges how long a request takes against the value of the result.</li>
<li>If appropriate suggests alternatives that achieve the same outcome.</li>
<li>Averts tasks that are done for no reason other than "that's the way it is always done".</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">A good BIM manager is proactive.</span>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Uses the opportunity of introducing new software functionality to improve approaches to problem solving and service delivery.</li>
<li>Provides fearless advice, but accepts their view may not always be adopted.</li>
<li>Listens to others. (as they might just have better ideas).</li>
<li>Involves themselves in industry wide BIM issues.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
IS A GOOD OFFICE BIM MANAGER ENOUGH?</h3>
The position of Office BIM manager is a relatively recent phenomena. Despite what I said above the position does have similarities to the CAD manager role (and many CAD managers do move in to the role easily). Only now, with BIM, computer technology has much greater importance.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
I.T. has become critical to the operation of AEC firms. Just as has happened with many other industries (a bank CEO famously once said he didn't run a bank, he ran an I.T. company).<br />
As there is not a tradition of having a CIO or CTO equivalent in AEC firms (except for the very large) the role of Office BIM manager is well suited to filling this gap.<br />
<br />
The Office BIM manager must be a part of all decision making processes. That is not to say they should be THE decision maker, just that their advice be sought and considered for all processes within the office, not just for the creating of drawings. They should be involved in practice management, project teams and job submissions. And be given responsibilities beyond just I.T., things like office QA.<br />
<br />
However selecting the right person for the job is not enough.<br />
<br />
Directors, designers and project leaders have to stop pretending they don't need to change the way they work, that it is only their underlings that need to learn new ways.<br />
Those responsible for managing how the office, projects and output are done must also change the way they work for their office to benefit from BIM processes. Just checking drawings is no longer a viable QA approach.<br />
<br />
After all even the most experienced and proficient Office BIM manager can only do so much if they have no influence over what half the office does.<br />
<br />
<br />
BIM, and the benefits BIM can bring, don't happen by themselves. Like any process, if not properly managed it can be an impediment rather than an advantage. And a good Office BIM Manager is a vital part of getting BIM to work.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-12700407908552630452016-05-26T17:36:00.000+10:002016-05-27T21:57:06.717+10:00How Usable are BIM Standards?This month the UK Chartered Institute of Building (<a href="http://www.ciob.org/" target="_blank">CIOB</a>) published an article in their <a href="http://www.bimplus.co.uk/" target="_blank">BIM+</a> blog.<br />
Titled <a href="http://www.bimplus.co.uk/people/level-2-sta9ndards-crea3ting-consist4ency-causing-/" target="_blank">LEVEL 2 STANDARDS: CREATING CONSISTENCY OR CAUSING COMPLEXITY?</a> <br />
it is a series of interviews with people involved in having to use BIM.<br />
<br />
It is a timely and interesting article, and as regular readers of my blog will appreciate, close to my heart. A sample:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“People like me are invited on seminars and conferences and sent papers on BIM, but the information isn't easy to navigate,” he says. “It is made to sound more complicated than it really is and I'm having difficulty understanding what it is I have to do that I am not already doing."</blockquote>
Equally interesting are the comments on a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/98421/98421-6138011303580565504" target="_blank">LinkedIn group discussion about the article</a>. Many thought those complaining about BIM standards simply didn't get BIM, and furthermore don't want to. Discussion on whether the contents of current BIM standards are good or bad seems to be not only avoided, but shut down.<br />
<br />
Do I think BIM standards are unnecessarily complex? You bet. I also believe they are inadequate.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<h3>
What makes a good Standard?</h3>
It is not enough to just have a standard, to provide something for managers to tick off, they must also serve a purpose for those that use them.<br />
<br />
At a basic level standards should:<br />
<ul>
<li>create consistency.</li>
<li>reduce industry effort.</li>
</ul>
But these aims won't be met if no-one, or insufficient people, follow the standards. For standards to work they must:<br />
<ul>
<li>be useful for the creators of information.</li>
<li>be useful for the users of information.</li>
</ul>
To work in the real world standards must be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Each consumer of a standard must find it useful to them. Just as each evolutionary change has to be useful for it to survive in a population and so be passed on.<br />
<br />
At the moment in BIM standards only "create consistency" is being considered. A tick box for project initiators and managers. When it comes to individual standards there is little consideration of reducing effort, or assessing cost benefit. When the additional effort required to comply with a standard is questioned it is dismissed as immaterial when considered against the overall savings of using BIM.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that although you can try and force people to adopted standards, they will only actually be used if they are useful to those who have to follow them.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM Standard Inadequacies</h3>
Talk about BIM standards always revolves around the need to have them. Of course we need them. It is not worth discussing the point. What is more relevant is how adequate are they? Are up to doing what is expected of them?<br />
<br />
I'm not an expert on standards, nor do I claim to have an intimate knowledge of all BIM standards. But when I do investigate particular BIM standards I always find inadequacies. I don't do enough of an in-depth investigation to find all deficiencies, but when you find one you start to wonder if there are more. Here are some examples.<br />
<h4>
PAS 1192-2</h4>
The underling principles of PAS1192-2 are probably OK, but it is hard to tell. It is so overly prescriptive with poor explanation of objectives.<br />
The section at the beginning titled "Fundamental Principles" is completely opaque to anyone without pre-knowledge of BIM. The problem is it explains principles in terms of BIM processes, rather than construction and operation processes.<br />
Although the section titled "Scope" is easier to follow, PAS1192-2 gives the impression it is about a totally new discipline rather than a more efficient way of doing things that are already being done.<br />
<br />
I have other criticisms, see them in my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/procuring-bim-pas-1192-2-and-acif-pti.html" target="_blank">Procuring BIM - PAS 1192-2 and acif PTI</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/your-bim-acronym-guide-what-all-those-letters-mean.html" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSi1qm1ZE5rmdh5P8G6_CmU4InrqGJhDILSbPizqP5GvgE9mGezFt74NYOXLg0y_-drzV4x6h-0Sv5aaTVK5jYebOZ0dx0V8qMGjBvH-o_mk3FH4bJiMK6wBFRHOi6RfOhgeFuTiCCCMCJ/s400/PAS1192-2brainMap_500.png" width="366" /></a></div>
<br />
<h4>
COBie</h4>
I have to say I don't understand COBie.<br />
Why require an email address for a product rather than a URL?<br />
Why insist "N/A" be against all fields where there is no data without distinguishing whether the data is not applicable, not available, or not known yet?<br />
I could go on. Read more in my post to <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/to-cobie-or-not-to-cobie.html" target="_blank">COBie or not to COBie</a><br />
<br />
But I've kind of given up on COBie. I'm not a facilities manager, I don't know how they work or think. If they find COBie inadequate for their purposes they should speak up.<br />
<br />
But there is another issue with the use COBie that impacts on standard compliance and implementation.<br />
COBie is from the US. It was developed by Bill East for the US Military. It subsequently became a US standard (<a href="https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/" target="_blank">NBIMS</a>). The UK government (under advice) decided to base FM data delivery on the COBie standard. The UK developed their own COBie template files and made them publicly available.<br />
<br />
The problem is the UK Templates don't exactly follow the US COBie standard. There are some spelling differences (critically important if computers are going to be used for processing), and examples in the template that contradict the US COBie. I've seen questions like this a few times in LinkedIn discussions:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Would someone be able to confirm whether the COBie UK 2012 standard follows the NBIMS V3 and exclude certain Ifc types, such as Walls and Slabs? BS1192;4 (Fulfilling employers information exchange requirements using COBie) refer to FM Handover MVD and NBIMS V3 so should exclude these items, however the UK COBie example includes them, are they wrong?"</blockquote>
The original US COBie specifically excludes a building's fabric like walls and floors because they are not a "managed asset". The (sensible) basis of this is that is facility management don't have a remit to alter walls and floors so why include them in their data? (surface treatments to walls, which may come under their remit, are treated differently in COBie).<br />
<br />
Now it could be a mistake. An overzealous, inexperienced minion added walls to the example template. But whenever this issue comes up it is vigorously defended on the basis that a facility manager "might" want to include walls. Under that logic COBie could include absolutely everything in the construction model. Which kind defeats the purpose of having a standard.<br />
For more on how the UK is misunderstanding COBie see my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/cobie-is-not-what-you-think-it-is.html" target="_blank">COBie is not what you think it is</a><br />
<br />
<h4>
NBS National BIM Object Standard</h4>
Where do I start. Every time I re-read this "<a href="https://www.thenbs.com/about-nbs/news/nbs-named-double-winner-at-construction-news-awards" target="_blank">award winning</a>" standard I am in awe of how unhelpful it is.<br />
I make a lot of BIM components. My last job was creating components for a pre-fabrication system. Yet there is nothing in the NBS National BIM Object Standard that I find useful, that would help me standardize the components I make.<br />
<br />
It contains methods that can not be done in the most popular BIM software.<br />
The standard insists it own parameter names be used, so instead of Revit's built in parameter 'Fire Rating' the name 'FireRating' must be used. The standard suggests mapping 'Fire Rating' to a new custom parameter 'FireRating' .<br />
But you can't.<br />
Firstly you can't create formulas for wall parameters in Revit (because they are not a loadable component), secondly it is not possible to use text parameters in formulas. Now these may be deficiencies of Revit, but the fact remains anyone using Revit can not follow the NBS standard. Why produce a standard most people can not comply with? Is it arrogance or ignorance?<br />
<br />
The NBS don't even follow the standard when naming components in their own BIM Object Library (see how in my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/nbs-bim-object-standard-where-is-impact.html" target="_blank">NBS BIM Object Standard - Where is the Impact Statement?</a>).<br />
<br />
Of course the reason they are not following their own standard's naming convention is because it hinders efficiency. But they refuse to change the standard because the naming convention comes from another standard - BS 8541:1 Clause 4.3.2.<br />
To see how the NBS try and justify their approach have a look at <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4103410/4103410-5995953364968501248" target="_blank">this LinkedIn discussion</a>.<br />
<br />
Which is a fundamental problem with the current approach to standards. Rather than directly addressing the problem at hand (in this case one of naming) the "correct" approach is to always refer to another standard. It is one of the reasons standards are filled with references to other standards, making them incomprehensible to normal reading. Whilst there may be good reasons to refer to another standard rather then re-invent the wheel, it seems to be happening with no assessment of whether the referred standard is appropriate. Find a standard with a similar purpose (e.g. way of naming files) and then use it without question.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Classification</h4>
Before BIM there existed building classification systems. In the US Omniclass was created by combining a number of related classification systems (Uniform, MasterSpec etc). In the UK Uniclass was developed. These systems were mainly used by specification writers and estimators.<br />
When BIM came along they seemed like a good way to classify objects in a BIM model. Autodesk added the ability to add classification numbers and descriptions to Revit objects. They also created data files of Omniclass values. But what they found is the existing classification system was not deep enough to be able to give every object that may be used in a Revit model a unique number. They had to add an extra 3 levels of numbers.<br />
<br />
So what everyone in the industry assumed was a way of uniquely identifying every element in a building project actually couldn't.<br />
<br />
This is an example of what I call the 'Delusion of Standards'. The delusion that a standard does what the authors and promoters think it can. And they maintain this delusion by not testing the standard in the real world, and shutting down any criticism. After all, it is less effort to convince people something is true than to produce evidence that it is true.<br />
<br />
In the UK they realised the original Uniclass was inadequate for BIM use. Mainly because of the overall structure and lack of consistent structure between tables. To their credit they are revising it, creating a new Uniclass2 (now called Uniclass2015, I think, I haven't checked lately).<br />
The emphasis is on 'revising' - it is not complete. This is another issue we in the industry have to cope with. Being told to comply with standards that are incomplete.<br />
<br />
For more background on classification systems read my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/classification-not-so-easy.html" target="_blank">Classification - not so Easy</a><br />
<br />
<h4>
IFC</h4>
IFC is at the core of BIM standards. Fundamentally it is a way of structuring digital data that describes buildings. Specifically data for computer programming. It was never intended for building professionals to use directly (if you think it is have a look at <a href="http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC4/final/html/schema/ifcarchitecturedomain/lexical/ifcdoorstyle.htm" target="_blank">this example</a>).<br />
<br />
However the IFC structure (or 'schema' as it is called) can be used to structure data us mere mortals interact with. COBie is an attempt at this. The usual COBie deliverable is a spreadsheet file. The data is structured to follow the IFC schema and uses IFC names for things. It is touted as "human readable", but is only just. If directed and instructed adequately anyone can fill in the data, but it requires someone with deep knowledge of IFC to do the instructing.<br />
<br />
So whereas IFC is fine for structuring computerized BIM processes it is not suitable for humans. Unless you are a computer programmer requests to "comply with IFC" are a nonsense. The most we can due is use software that claims to be IFC compliant.<br />
<br />
Where most of us interact with IFC is with IFC files. That is BIM files in an IFC format (there is more than one). This is promoted as an "open format" that "any software can export and import".<br />
Not because IFC can be exported and imported by all softwares successfully, but because that is the aim of IFC, or specifically <a href="http://buildingsmart.org/" target="_blank">buildingSMART</a>, the not for profit and mostly volunteer organisation that promotes IFC.<br />
<br />
It is a funny situation. A standard is created, and when particular softwares don't interact with that standard particularly well it is always the software's fault. On the one hand we have softwares actively being used by thousands (millions?) of people to do real world things, and on the other we have a standard artificially created to do theoretical things (there are no authoring softwares that natively use the IFC format). I don't understand why IFC is so sacrosanct.<br />
For more on IFC refer to my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/ifc-what-is-it-good-for.html" target="_blank">IFC, What is it good for?</a><br />
<br />
But there is another issue with IFC that is not widely known. It is incomplete.<br />
<br />
Last year I was upgrading my door library and I thought I would make them IFC friendly. That is, ensure they have enough parameters to support a compliant IFC export.<br />
After some searching I found where buildingSMART keep their IFC specifications. First problem there are two versions, <a href="http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC2x3/TC1/html/" target="_blank">IFC 2x3</a> and <a href="http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/ifc/IFC4/final/html/index.htm" target="_blank">IFC 4</a>. The latter is the most current but not widely supported. Yet. Even though it has been out since March 2013. I decided to go with IFC 4.<br />
I found some parameters (called "properties" in IFC) to do with doors. Mostly concerning geometry, which Revit already has native parameters for. But I couldn't find anything to do with door hardware (locks, latches, hinges etc.).<br />
<br />
I though this can't be right. Nearly all buildings have doors, and all doors have hardware. So I asked the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/3690870/3690870-6008775585407455232" target="_blank">LinkedIn IFC group</a>.<br />
What surprised me was the attitude, the immediate assumption that IFC was faultless. Irrelevant other standards were suggested, and helpful suggestions that I develop my own IFC door hardware dataset. Someone offered the list of parameters NBS created for their BIM Object Library as a 'standard'.<br />
But how can it be a standard if different groups create their "own IFC fields" as one commenter suggested?<br />
<br />
So no, there are no IFC definitions for door hardware (or window hardware for that matter). <br />
Which means it is not possible to use IFC to issue a standardized construction door schedule.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Do we bother with standards?</h3>
BIM standards do not make a pretty picture. Certainly not the utopia BIM Evangelists promote.<br />
<br />
To be fair most are still being developed, and predominately by unpaid volunteers and inexperienced academics. The standards are young and untested.<br />
The problem is they are being treated like some kind of dogma that can not be questioned. That the basis for assessment is wholly within the world of standard creation and other standards, not the real world of construction and facilities management where real things happen.<br />
<br />
But standards are fundamentally a good idea. The computer industry heavily relies on standards, we wouldn't have all our e-devices without robust standards.<br />
<br />
The solution is not in how we rid ourselves of these troublesome standards, but in how we make them useful.<br />
<br />
For my two cents I see two fundamental problems.<br />
<h4>
Lack of Clear Objectives</h4>
High level standards like PAS 1192-2 seem to assume they must be as prescriptive as a standard for door hardware (for example, if such a thing existed). They don't, different processes can achieve the same results. For example you don't HAVE to use IPD contracts to get digital FM data.<br />
<br />
High level standards should follow a similar format as the Building Code of Australia (and many other standards):<br />
<ul>
<li>Objectives </li>
<li>Criteria to meet objectives </li>
<li>Requirements that are deemed to satisfy </li>
</ul>
This structure means that if the objectives are demonstratively achievable any process can be used, but still provides prescriptive processes for the unimaginative.<br />
<br />
As long as Objectives are be based on real world outcomes, not objectives wholly internal or in reference to other standards, like this from <i>PAS1192-2 Fundamental Principles</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"application of the processes and procedures<br />
outlined in the documents and standards indicated<br />
in Table 1; "</blockquote>
<h4>
Lack of basic information standardization</h4>
The second is that there is not enough work being done on low level standardization. Like IFC properties for door hardware.<br />
<br />
Manufacturers data needs to be consistent, so different manufacturers provide the same data for the same products. It would also be helpful if construction data like door schedules were standardized across all projects.<br />
<br />
It seems perverse that we have highly prescriptive standards on processes that manage non-standardized data. An elaborate mechanism to ensure the delivery of door data where this is no standard to say how that door data is to be structured.<br />
<br />
Admittedly there is work being done in this area, but not nearly enough, and not fast enough. The UK government would have got more bang for their buck (pop for their pound) if they focused on funding and enforcing standardizing manufacturer data rather than untested theoretical BIM processes.<br />
<br />
In fact it appears governments have to get involved looking at the failure of standardizing manufacturer data in the US. Bill East made this comment in a LinkedIn discussion:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The conclusion reached during the SPie project [in the US] are that "If you build it, they will NOT come" (see movie Field of Dreams for quote). The bottom line is that the integration of product and equipment manufacturer data into the construction supply chain is a very, very hard problem. Publishing a list of product templates does not mean that anyone will actually use them. It has been tried over 4 times now in the US with national projects. Two have been attempted with the authoritative product data publisher, once by NIBS, and once by NIBS (under the SPie project). Despite significant development work and and participation by companies such as General Electric, there has been zero effective use by the supply chain."</blockquote>
We should, we need, to bother with standards. But we need to get them right.<br />
In the meantime how do those of us on the ground, those having BIM standards thrust at us, deal with this unsatisfactory situation?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Don't worry about Standards</h3>
I'm not saying ignore BIM standards, just don't take them too seriously. Because BIM standards are not the most important thing you need to understand when utilizing BIM.<br />
<br />
The most important thing you need to understand is how your BIM software works.<br />
For designers like engineers, architects, sub-contractors your BIM authoring software, for contractors your BIM federating, estimating and scheduling softwares, for facility managers your BIM capable facility management software.<br />
<br />
BIM may be a process but it is a process of managing software. If that software is used inefficiently or inaccurately it doesn't matter how good the management process is, the result will still be a disaster. The problem is not that people don't understand the BIM standards, it is that they don't know how to use BIM software properly.<br />
<br />
There is no point a prospective taxi driver learning the streets of the city if they don't know how to drive a car. For managers, knowing the best places to distribute your taxi drivers around the city won't bring work in if none of them know how to drive.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Learn the Software, not the Standards</h3>
Unlike standards BIM software is made in a competitive market where the customer matters.<br />
Unlike standards if their product is not useful they will do something about it (if only to the degree that it out-competes the competition).<br />
<br />
Good quality BIM software (not CAD with a BIM add on) is designed to do the things you do. Unlike CAD which is for generic drawing BIM softwares are designed for specific disciplines. You will be surprised at how many of your processes are already built into the software. For example Revit has methods for doing area plans, sun studies, energy analysis, managing revisions, managing cross referencing, and many others. ArchiCAD has similar functionality.<br />
<br />
But you have to use BIM software the way it is designed to be used. You can not simply force it to mimic the way you have always done things.<br />
A lot of smart people have put a lot of thought into BIM software work processes, a lot of other people are using them, and those processes are likely to be BIM standards compliant.<br />
<br />
Use the introduction of BIM software to review existing practice, develop new processes and retrain staff. When I teach Revit I do more than just show how to use the software. I introduce new ways of doing things. More efficient, more accurate ways. Like changing door parameters (to keep the door analogy going) instead of working through a door schedule spreadsheet, colour coding different door types, like fire doors; escape doors; disable access doors, so it is easy to check the right doors are in the right places.<br />
<br />
BIM is, and should be, useful to everyone. Work out how to make BIM useful to you. How you can use your BIM software to make your processes more efficient, your output higher quality, to reduce your uncertainty and risks.<br />
<br />
If you do that you don't need to comply with BIM standards, because you will be doing BIM.<br />
<br />
When it comes to standards compare the work processes you have developed for your purposes against BIM standards, and see how they can be interpreted to match your needs. As I've shown above they are so full of holes it shouldn't be that hard. And even if your interpretation is not strictly legit it is unlikely there is anyone who can follow those standards well enough to realise.<br />
<br />
So don't worry if BIM standards appear too complex, don't seem that useful. Forget about them. Concentrate on getting the most - for you, out of your BIM software. Once you do that everything else will fall in to place.<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-33015465437062904022016-03-31T08:30:00.000+11:002016-04-01T07:15:05.525+11:00COBie is not what you think it isWhen BIM is talked about mention of COBie is never far away. What I don't understand is why COBie has reached such a privileged position. Sure it is (pretty much) mature, sure it has been used in the real world (although far from ubiquitous). But it is only a small part of BIM, a small part of the whole process of establishing, building and operating facilities.<br />
<br />
Part of this seems to be coming from the UK and the furore to understand what they call "Level 2 BIM". But we see it here in Australia as well. Clients and owners who place requests for COBie deliverables that on closer inspection are not actually COBie at all.<br />
<br />
I suppose COBie is tangible, you can download COBie spreadsheets and so tick the COBie box on your BIM checklist. But I feel COBie is a bit like Quantum Mechanics - most people have heard of it but very few actually understand it.<br />
<br />
So it is very likely your understanding of COBie is wrong.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkyx0M42oZSqL06kyhml2yKchvvFNnnMRLIV4QOm9FOhzr5I36LnaBbNoD1wQIliVqWpujsFA-HQkbIpLp-3wX-tiByW3svRFieryZJjpM4WfLZoF7k2QRwiBeTG5Nuu1BlLSr9FKxvT3-/s1600/knowitall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkyx0M42oZSqL06kyhml2yKchvvFNnnMRLIV4QOm9FOhzr5I36LnaBbNoD1wQIliVqWpujsFA-HQkbIpLp-3wX-tiByW3svRFieryZJjpM4WfLZoF7k2QRwiBeTG5Nuu1BlLSr9FKxvT3-/s1600/knowitall.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Not that COBie is as complicated as Quantum Mechanics. In fact COBie is probably far simpler than you think it is.<br />
<br />
I'm no COBie expert, I'm an architect, not a facilities manager. Bill East is THE expert. He developed COBie while at the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), shepherded it in to the <a href="https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/" target="_blank">National Building Information Model (NBIMS-US)</a> standard, and is still heavily involved in COBie, including the latest update.<br />
<br />
<div>
Bill is co-manager of a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/2638637" target="_blank">COBie LinkedIn group</a>, and is active in discussions. It is fascinating reading (for a BIM geek). Rather than provide my own commentary I've used quotes from discussions to clarify what I see as the most common misunderstandings of what COBie is (and is not).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
COBie the Acronym</h3>
COBie, according to the <a href="http://www.nibs.org/?page=bsa_cobie" target="_blank">buildingSMART alliance</a>, is an acronym for 'Construction Operations information exchange'.<br />
<br />
Bill East adds an important rider:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...COBie requirements consistent with it's name the 'Construction <i><b>(to)</b></i> Operations Building information exchange' format."</blockquote>
COBie is about exchanging construction information <i><b>to</b></i> operations. That is, information that already exists for construction purposes is 'exchanged' for operation purposes.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie is the list of scheduled assets found on drawings and in existing contractor O&M related deliverable. The sole focus of COBie is the capture of assets that need to be managed following construction." </blockquote>
Therefore COBie is NOT about construction and does not include sufficient information for construction purposes.<br />
<br />
And COBie is NOT a method to embed information required for Operations only within construction data or models.<br />
<br />
<h3>
COBie is only for Operations</h3>
The meaning of 'Operation' in the context of COBie is limited. Again from Bill East:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie should include 'Managed' assets. Managed assets are those assets which;<br />
- requires management<br />
- requires (considerable) on-going maintenance<br />
- has consumable parts requires regular periodic inspections"</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie only defines requirements for information about the spatial containment of managed assets -- these are manufactured products that have tags or serial numbers. These items appear in drawing schedules."</blockquote>
<br />
Yet there is a misunderstanding that COBie should contain anything that may even remotely be referenced. Bill East:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A bit confused about the discussion of Walls since the COBie specification EXPLICTLY excludes walls, beams, columns, foundations, and all other structural members." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I hope that this effort will clarify the distinction between requirements for facility and asset management handover (which is COBie) and other needs such as carbon and life-cycle costing (which is not what COBie was designed to do). While other needs may be critically important, delivering them through COBie is likely not to work. Why? because COBie was not designed for that job."</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
Don't call it COBie</h3>
Not that Bill East is saying standards and methods to exchange information outside of COBie can not be done. Just don't call them COBie, call them something else:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie is specifically for the purpose it was designed. If you are trying to make it do something else then it is no longer COBie." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Real Estate information is not required to solve the problem of eliminating boxes of paper in the boiler room -- i.e. "information about pump 5 in room 3." As a result, real estate information is not explicitly represented in COBie.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... if you change the purpose or content of COBie you will need to call it something other than COBie according to it's creative commons licencing terms."</blockquote>
And the warning is not just for those attempting to create a different COBie standard. If you use COBie on a project and add things beyond what COBie includes you also should not call it a COBie deliverable:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If you <b><i>use</i></b> COBie in a way which violates the COBie specification you are no longer meeting the COBie requirement. You are doing something else that is not COBie."</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
COBie is not equal to IFC</h3>
There is a fair bit of confusion over the relationship between COBie and IFC. In simple terms COBie is not IFC, but follows IFC standards and protocols.<br />
<br />
Ian Hamilton provided a good general description:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"IFC is a data format, well 2 actually: STEP (<a href="http://www.steptools.com/library/standard/" target="_blank">ISO 10303</a>) and xml (<a href="http://www.buildingsmart-tech.org/specifications/ifcxml-releases" target="_blank">ifcXML</a>).<br />
COBie is a list of things. It can be in a spreadsheet, in IFC or in other appropriate formats.</blockquote>
Bill East was more specific:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In point of fact, COBie an IFC Model View Definition (<a href="http://docs.buildingsmartalliance.org/MVD_COBIE/" target="_blank">http://docs.buildingsmartalliance.org/MVD_COBIE/</a>)."</blockquote>
<br />
A Model View Definition (MVD) describes the things in a BIM model that are required for a particular purpose. In IFC those "things that are required" are labelled "information exchanges" (more on that below). From the buildingSMART website:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"An IFC View Definition, or Model View Definition, MVD, defines a subset of the IFC schema, that is needed to satisfy one or many Exchange Requirements of the AEC industry."</blockquote>
<br />
Stephen DeVito made it even clearer:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie is a subset of IFC, an IFC Model View Definition, and comparing IFC to COBie is like comparing the whole assortment of fruit in a basket with only the apples. This is a most basic fundamental misunderstanding which occurs constantly in the industry ..."</blockquote>
<br />
One of the causes of confusion is that the IFC used by design and construction software is also an MVD. As Bill East explains:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"BIM authoring tools (up to this time) produce IFC files based on the <i>Coordination Model View Definition</i>. The purpose of that MVD is to express the geometry of all physical objects in the project for purpose of collision detection.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The MVD inside COBie has a much more modest goal, simply to deliver information about managed and maintained facility assets. As such, COBie data in any presentation format (IFC, ifcXML, SpreadsheetML, COBieLite) will be smaller than that of the Coordination View."</blockquote>
<br />
The idea is that the design and construction team's IFC Coordination MVD can have the COBie MVD extracted from it.<br />
This is fine in theory, the reality is not quite so simple. Different softwares export varying qualities of IFC, and not all items included in the IFC Coordination MVD are always modelled (because they are not needed for the particular project).<br />
So whilst in theory you should be able to extract COBie from an IFC export, currently it rarely works without a lot of unnecessary extra effort, if at all. One day this might be practical, but generally it is easier and less work to extract straight to COBie from design softwares.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another misunderstanding is that COBie, although not currently containing a 'full' definition of IFC, will be further developed so it includes a greater range of definitions. As Bill East says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie-UK is clearly called out as a stepping-stone to 'full' building information modeling in IFC. In my view UK should just stop calling what they are doing COBie and simply get on with requiring IFC with all disciplines, trades, geometries, entities, properties, etc..."</blockquote>
<br />
To sum up, COBie is NOT a general delivery method for everything in IFC.<br />
<br />
<h3>
COBie doesn't need to do everything</h3>
The 'ie' in COBie stands for 'information exchange'. From the <a href="http://www.nibs.org/?page=bsa_infoexchange" target="_blank">buildingSMART alliance</a> web site:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The requirements [of information exchange projects] are defined in an 'Information Delivery Manual.' The IDM clearly defines the problem to be solved and makes clear who is involved, what information is needed, and when that information is needed. These requirements are translated into a 'Model View Definition' that provides the technical description of which parts of the Industry Foundation Class Model (IFC) found in ISO 16739 are needed to solve the problem."</blockquote>
COBie is only one of a number of information exchange projects. Other projects listed by the buildingSMART alliance to date are:<br />
<ul>
<li>BIMSie - BIM Service interface exchange</li>
<li>BAMie - Building Automation Modeling information exchange</li>
<li>BPie - Building Programming information exchange</li>
<li>Sparkie - Electrical System information exchange</li>
<li>HVAC information exchange (HVACie)</li>
<li>LCie - Life Cycle information exchange: BIM for PLM</li>
<li>QTie - Quantity Takeoff information exchange</li>
<li>SPie - Specifiers' Properties information exchange</li>
<li>WALLie - Wall information exchange</li>
<li>WSie - Water System information exchange</li>
</ul>
<br />
All of these follow the same structure as COBie - they are subsets of IFC definitions, with their own MVD.<br />
<br />
So you can see the intent is that information specific to a purpose has its own 'ie'. There is no need to expand an existing 'ie', instead a more appropriate 'ie' is used, or another project is started.<br />
<br />
For example COBie doesn't define the format manufacturers provide their information in, SPie does that. However when manufacturer's information is required by COBie it has to follow the SPie format.<br />
<br />
Rather than have one big standard the idea is to break it down into more specific standards that can reference each other. From Bill East:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The sole focus of COBie is the capture of assets that need to be managed following construction. The system "ie's" include COBie for that discipline (i.e. the Components), but also include the assemblies of those components and the connections between the components. These system ie's provide the full geometry at least as far as fabrication and can be included in construction contracts as a better statement of as-builts than any attempt at having someone do a walk through of the project after the fact..."</blockquote>
<br />
So in the example above where Bill East is talking about Real Estate information (in response to some-one asking why that information isn't included in COBie), the way to do it is to create a Real Estate information exchange:- <i>REALie</i>, or if the data is actually about land titles:- <i>TITie</i>.<br />
This information could be delivered in spreadsheet form, even within the same file (in its own worksheet) as a COBie deliverable, just don't call it COBie.<br />
<br />
Anyone can start or get involved in an 'ie' project. From the <a href="http://www.nibs.org/?page=bsa_infoexchange" target="_blank">buildingSMART alliance website</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"To participate in an existing project simply contact the point of contact identified on that project page." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If the project you need isn't in the list above, you can start your own project by joining the buildingSMART alliance."</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
There is more than just COBie</h3>
There has been enormous focus on COBie but it is not necessarily the only data exchange that will improve productivity.<br />
<br />
Specifiers' Properties information exchange (SPie) is an interesting case. Basically it is meant to standardize the way products are specified, leading to standardizing how manufacturers define their products. So they all use the same names for the same things, and include the same information as each other. You would think this would be an easy task. Apparently not. Bill East admitted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The conclusion reached during the SPie project [in the US] are that "If you build it, they will NOT come" (see movie Field of Dreams for quote). The bottom line is that the integration of product and equipment manufacturer data into the construction supply chain is a very, very hard problem. Publishing a list of product templates does not mean that anyone will actually use them. It has been tried over 4 times now in the US with national projects. Two have been attempted with the authoritative product data publisher, once by NIBS, and once by NIBS (under the SPie project). Despite significant development work and and participation by companies such as General Electric, there has been zero effective use by the supply chain."</blockquote>
<br />
However the UK may have better results:<br />
<br />
Carl Collins:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Is the failure of SPie in the US a function of who created it? Have the suppliers themselves been an integral part of the process? I'm guessing not, as they are often unaware of SPie when I have spoken to them." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This is the difference that the CIBSE started Product Data Templates (<a href="http://bimtalk.co.uk/bim_glossary:pdt" target="_blank">http://bimtalk.co.uk/bim_glossary:pdt</a>) has; we are defining them with the Manufacturers and Suppliers and asking for sign-off from their Trade Associations, so there is buy-in from the outset.<br />
Our starting point for each template is the SPie template, but we have found that they are not detailed enough to adequately describe the product and have too many project specific parameters that don't really belong on the Product side, but should be detailed on the Project side. This allows a Manufacturer to complete a template once for each product line and may be used for any project."</blockquote>
<br />
This is really critical. Producing COBie mainly involves manually transferring manufacturer data into COBie format, whether done directly into COBie spreadsheets or into a BIM model. Enormous productivity gains will happen when this data can be pulled in directly.<br />
<br />
Rather than just mandating COBie specifications and contractor's supplier contracts should be required to demand suppliers provide standard format product data. I'm sure transferring a little money from manufacturers' marketing budgets would more than cover the cost.<br />
<br />
<h3>
COBie UK</h3>
The UK government has a BIM mandate. Does this mean COBie is a required deliverable for all projects?<br />
<br />
Rob Jackson:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie will be mandatory for all centrally procured UK Government projects from January 1st 2016 [now 4th April 2016]. The private sector can do what they want but even most of them will align with recognised standards."</blockquote>
<br />
And COBie is not necessarily a requirement if UK standards are followed. COBie is merely one method that may satisfy requirements.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Charlotte Brogan (Gray):<br />
"COBie is one way of transferring data from a 3D environment to an facilities management software, however depending on clients in the UK will depend on how the data is handed over. This is why it is not mandatory in the UK, the standards state that a single source of asset information is to be produced and handed over to the client upon project completion. Therefore with the use of document management systems and links this can be achieved without the use of COBie. One day when clients are up to speak COBie may become more prominent in the UK AEC Industry."</blockquote>
<br />
Is COBie-UK different from COBie?<br />
<br />
The fact the UK have developed their own COBie templates tends to confuse many. Some believe there is a UK COBie and a US COBie, which makes a farce of the idea of COBie as a standard.<br />
COBie allows for regional customization so the fact COBie-UK templates exist is not evidence there are two standards. For example COBie-UK mandates <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/classification-not-so-easy.html" target="_blank">UniClass</a> for classification. But this does not necessarily mean it is non-compliant as the choice of classification system is not defined in COBie. Bill East:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"According to the standard, classification is required but arbitrary. The choice depends on regional, national, local, owner convention. Ultimately, the best choice is the one that serves the recipient of COBie data."</blockquote>
<br />
Although COBie-UK does have some language differences which can cause problems for computerized processes. Rob Jackson:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The U.K. COBie-UK-2012 template have Moveable and Fixed in the standard Picklist for AssetType. The US standard as Bill points out uses Movable. This is one of the minor differences either side of the pond."</blockquote>
But more of concern is Bill East's view that COBie-UK is pushing COBie beyond its intended purpose.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"COBie-UK efforts have resulted in unrealistic expectation that (for example): the Coordinate sheet should be required (it is, in fact, junk and will likely be removed from the next iteration of the COBie standard); the insistence that COBie can successfully model steel structures; and the expectation that every possible permutation of room finishes -should- be included in COBie." </blockquote>
<br />
This may just be due to overzealousness, or perhaps a lack of understanding the concept of MVDs and information exchanges as envisioned by buildingSMART.<br />
<br />
But I agree with Bill East. If you don't think COBie is adequate for your purposes then use, or develop, something else. Don't mess with an existing standard. It just confuses everyone.<br />
<br />
For example if the UK want a single deliverable for all information exchange data create a container for COBie and any other 'ie' that a client/employer/owner may want. And call it something like "UKie", or "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_the_United_Kingdom" target="_blank">HMG</a>ie", after all the mandate is only for government projects.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Use COBie properly</h3>
From Bill East:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Owners need to answer three critical questions if they want COBie data they can use. Why? because COBie is only the format to deliver handover data. COBie can't possible predict the specifics of an individual Owner or project. Here are the questions: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li>What assets do we manage? The Owner should look at what they actually maintain over time. The default position of getting "everything" distracts the team from the Owner's real needs. </li>
<li>What information do we need? If Owners need the fan belt size for fans, say so in writing. Without such specifics Owners can expect to get whatever is given, and like it. </li>
<li>How will it be organized? Campus/Installation owners with a consistent Classification method for COBie.Space and COBie.Type will be able to mine data."</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br />
COBie is only meant to contain information called for in design and construction contracts. As Bill East says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This topic keeps cropping up, so I thought I would remind everyone of the following rules about COBie and product data. First, COBie product and equipment properties at design must match what appears on design schedules. Second, COBie equipment properties at construction must match what is in the existing non-COBie contract specs (typically equipment nameplate data). Because of this, there is -no- additional cost of "doing COBie" since the information being required is no different from what is currently in design and construction contracts."</blockquote>
Therefore if your COBie deliverable contains data that is NOT required for design or construction, it is beyond the scope of COBie. And that extra data is extra work for those creating the deliverable. Don't expect it for free.<br />
<br />
(Although I disagree with Bill about there being no additional cost for "doing COBie". If that were the case we should be able to deliver our documents in Spanish, or Chinese, - same information, just different format.)<br />
<br />
<br />
But my favourite comment from Bill East says it all:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"what COBie repeatedly has been about is the 'art-of-the-possible' not the 'art-of-the-aspirational'."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-74749358792551111502016-01-29T16:50:00.000+11:002019-04-24T08:05:00.167+10:00How to define BIM Use<span style="font-family: inherit;">For those that don't know, a <i>BIM Use</i> is a task, outcome or deliverable that a BIM model is used for. For example when a BIM model is used for structural analysis, or to create a door schedule, or provide data for an FM system.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When talking about BIM Use we mean "Building Information Models" (actual digital models), not as in "Building Information Modelling" (BIM processes). Because of this some call it Model Use, but I shall stick to BIM Use, as there is a world beyond BIM with other types of models.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAcB0qOCUMeR53NgesNBcknaBMnw44b4T6e2o3YYnNn4a-LbABgPzA__Tiq71LunugtwTaI44RW6YO_c776ObX-I5sgzMpodMSbw7Va8VXTTOzeGWyXRkNf53BKNkForMl11d4M3B97v1B/s1600/bimProcessVsModel04.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAcB0qOCUMeR53NgesNBcknaBMnw44b4T6e2o3YYnNn4a-LbABgPzA__Tiq71LunugtwTaI44RW6YO_c776ObX-I5sgzMpodMSbw7Va8VXTTOzeGWyXRkNf53BKNkForMl11d4M3B97v1B/s1600/bimProcessVsModel04.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">BIM Use is at the core of BIM. The basic concept of BIM is that data created is captured in a form and format that can be directly used as a resource for other purposes. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So doors are created in such a way that a door schedule can be produced directly from those doors. That modelled structural elements behave in a way that allows for structural analysis.</span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yet there seems to be massive confusion around BIM Use. What should be simple is made incredibly complicated by BIM standards, BIM contract clauses and BIM theorists.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've written before about BIM Use and how it is being applied to LOD, in my posts <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/lod-are-we-there-yet.html" target="_blank">LOD, are we there yet?</a> and <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-is-use-of-bim-use.html" target="_blank">What is the use of BIM Use</a>. But those posts don't offer a solution.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unfortunately when confronted with something unintelligible and unworkable we tend to avoid the whole thing. But BIM Use can not be ignored. If we are going to really do BIM we have to have a workable way of managing BIM Use.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
The purpose of a BIM Use</h3>
Let us start with the basics. Why have a BIM Use?<br />
<br />
A particular BIM Use must have a useful real world outcome. It should only be listed as a BIM Use for a project if there is a specific reason to do it; a specific party who will do it; a specific party who will receive the results; a specific outcome that aids the design, building or operation of the project facility.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This sounds so obvious yet is missing from most definitions of BIM Use. Discussion always seems to be around what is possible, rather than what is required, let alone practical.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Who employs BIM Uses</h3>
</div>
<div>
<div>
BIM Use is invariable talked about as the uses of external parties. Typically uses by the BIM model author are ignored.<br />
Apparently if a structural engineer uses the architect's BIM model for structural analysis that is a BIM Use, if they use their own it is not.</div>
<div>
I suspect this is because no cross-organisation agreement (or demand) is required it is not considered part of "BIM Process".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem is these in-house BIM processes are then not considered when agreeing on other BIM Uses. This can create problems when externally required BIM Uses compromise, or completely prevent, an author's own BIM Uses.<br />
<br />
To capture who is doing what it is useful to define BIM Uses against who they are between:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Within a discipline<br />- e.g. schedules from model</li>
<li>Between disciplines within a team (e.g. architect, engineer, QS etc.)<br />- e.g. energy analysis</li>
<li>Between teams (e.g. design, construction, operation, etc)<br />- e.g. asset management</li>
<li>Across disciplines<br />- e.g. estimates</li>
<li>Across teams<br />- e.g. clash detection</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Doing this not only ensures all BIM Uses are considered but also reveals what contractual requirements might be or not be needed for the project.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
LOD is not BIM Use</h3>
</div>
<div>
For a particular BIM Use to be achievable the BIM model must have certain requirements. Currently these requirements are described via LOD descriptions. Typically an LOD has certain BIM Uses associated with it. This is the AIA [US] approach. From their E203 guide:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The E202's Model Element Table provides a vehicle for defining Authorized Uses, Model element by Model element and milestone by milestone."</blockquote>
But in practice how do you define "Authorized Uses, <i>Model element by Model element</i> and <i>milestone by milestone</i>."?<br />
Considering there are literally hundreds of different possible "Authorized Uses" are we really expected to list them not only against each Model Element, but against each Model Element at each Milestone?<br />
<br />
The most practical LOD guide created thus far, BIM Forum's LOD specification, has tried to deal with this stipulation by kind of white-washing it. From their 2015 edition:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Because BIM is being put to an ever increasing number of uses, the group decided that it was beyond the initial scope to address all of them. Instead, the definitions were developed to address model element geometry, with three of the most common uses in mind – <i>quantity take-off, 3D coordination</i> and <i>3D control and planning</i>. The group felt that in taking this approach the interpretations would be complete enough to support other uses." </blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<br />
But the AIA[US] approach is fundamentally flawed, it is the wrong way round.<br />
BIM Uses should be listed with the required LOD against them, not LOD with allowed BIM Uses.<br />
<br />
What LOD tables actually do is to define the level of development each element is to have as the project progresses, at each milestone.<br />
This is a reflection of reality - project information progresses at the rate it is gathered, decided and created. You can't make information and decisions magically appear because you need it for a BIM Use, and have put it against an LOD table in a contract.<br />
<br />
LOD specifications, matrices, tables, whatever you want to call them, need to remove references to BIM Use. It just confuses and complicates them.<br />
<br />
A proper LOD table is an indication of model progression, when which parts will have what information available, based on what is realistically achievable.<br />
<br />
BIM Use should be a completely separate list, referencing LOD's to describe what is required for them to be done. By comparing BIM Use requirements with LOD inclusions and progression a realistic assessment of what BIM Uses are feasible, and when they can be undertaken, is possible.<br />
<br />
The current process of using LOD definitions to determine what "Authorized Uses" are possible is delusional, it will never work in practice.</div>
<div>
<br />
<h3>
Who decides BIM Uses?</h3>
Another problem with the AIA [US] approach is that it defines what BIM Uses are "permitted", not what uses are necessary or even desired. Again from E203:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The term “Authorized Uses” refers to the <i>permitted</i> uses of Digital Data"</blockquote>
Wouldn't a better approach be to define BIM Uses on a project by what uses participants want to perform? Not what a BIM author says they are <i>permitted</i> to perform?<br />
<br />
In the E203 guide it states that the "usual approach" is to take the position "because some of the information is not reliable don't rely on any of it". And that their intent in E203 is to change that to "because some of the information is not reliable you can only rely on the information that I explicitly say you can."<br />
<br />
Now that seems a sensible approach. If an architect tells you the walls in their model are LOD 200 then ignore any materials in those walls.<br />
The problem is when LOD 200 also means the architect is saying these walls are suitable for a particular BIM Use by some other discipline. Because then we have gone from the traditional "we provide our information to you at your own risk" to "we will provide you sufficient information for you to perform your professional responsibilities."<br />
<br />
The result of this can be the BIM author allows no Authorized BIM Uses at all, which is no better than providing it at receiver's risk.<br />
Or the author claims information is adequate for an Authorized Use but it is not (and they refuse to rectify it), because they have no idea of what is actually required.<br />
Or a third scenario where the BIM author is penalized (or sued) because the model they provided was demonstrably not suitable for an Authorized Use they permitted (or were forced to permit under their contract).<br />
<br />
Either way those attempting to use the BIM model for a legitimate BIM Use are left in the lurch, and BIM authors are left at risk.<br />
<br />
<br />
As bad as letting BIM authors decide who can do what is, there is another, worse, (and very common) approach to deciding BIM Uses. That is the assumption the owner should do it. Not only that, but the owner should do it at the very beginning of the project before the various experts required are engaged.<br />
<br />
Of course it is legitimate that the owner make decisions on their own BIM Uses - facilities management, building control etc., and BIM Uses that may effect their decision making and built quality - crowd flow simulation, 3D visualization etc.<br />
But asking owners to list <i>all</i> BIM Uses for their project is absurd. The reality is the majority of BIM Uses are by the design and construction teams, to assist them perform their work, the work the owner has engaged them to be responsible for.<br />
<br />
Normally you would expect the owner to select design and construction professionals that have the skills to do the things they would like done. I don't understand why when it comes to BIM the expectation is that by simply listing a BIM Use in a document is will magically be done by whoever gets engaged, no matter what their skills.<br />
<br />
I know owners are the ones that pay everyone, and so can tell everyone what to do, but that doesn't by definition make them the best qualified to make decisions about all BIM Uses on a project. Expecting them to do so is delusional.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What about Standards</h3>
For something so fundamental there is a surprising dearth of standards that directly address BIM Use. Maybe it is too much like hard work to be so specific about particular BIM Uses.<br />
<br />
BIM Excellence.org has started a list of <a href="http://bimexcellence.com/model-uses/" target="_blank">BIM Use</a> definitions, 125 listed so far, although not all have actual definitions. A good start, to avoid duplication and standardize terminology.<br />
<br />
At first sight COBie could be considered a kind of BIM Use standard. Although it sets out the required output it doesn't directly describe required model progression, and it takes no account of the LOD concept. For example it makes no distinction between data never applicable or just not available yet - any empty fields must contain "n/a" in a COBie deliverable.<br />
<br />
A real BIM Use standard would set out what LOD requirements are for model elements to achieve the use.<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://bimforum.org/lod/" target="_blank">BIMforum LOD Specification</a> is probably the only real BIM Use standard. It clearly sets out LOD requirements for quantity take-off, 3D coordination and 3D control and planning. But it should be renamed the <b>BIMforum BIM Use Specification for: Quantity take-off; 3D coordination; 3D control and planning</b>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw39W_q6LE0CeBz6_ELGi2er0L0D7POfVxY1TCK9F2Ka70ByRhiuGy_JTybzyLTGD-c3SGexsNkf2CK8QVlZ9gLyQHnp3ZfbtGwSd7a7rfeNHj-J3Fpsn-G-oZfz3WyAQvaD55gtpDip1x/s1600/BIMforumMockup25.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw39W_q6LE0CeBz6_ELGi2er0L0D7POfVxY1TCK9F2Ka70ByRhiuGy_JTybzyLTGD-c3SGexsNkf2CK8QVlZ9gLyQHnp3ZfbtGwSd7a7rfeNHj-J3Fpsn-G-oZfz3WyAQvaD55gtpDip1x/s1600/BIMforumMockup25.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(with apologies to BIM Forum)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As BIM Use is invariably performed by software you would think software vendors would have an interest in establishing standards that optimise their software performance. Although competing software specific standards are not necessarily the best approach.<br />
IFC is kind of in this space. MVD (Model View Definitions) define elements required for specific views of a model, which could them be used for a BIM Use. But IFC is really about software standards, not software use or BIM processes performed by humans.<br />
<br />
I believe some standard definitions around BIM Use would be really useful. Currently beyond asking specific people on my projects I have no way of knowing what is required for a BIM Use I don't participate in. <br />
<br />
Although standards can be part of the solution they can never be the only solution. The expectation that every BIM use for every discipline or team for every project will be covered by a standard is delusional. And what do we do while waiting for standards to be authored, discussed and agreed?<br />
What we need are processes that establish BIM Use protocols.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Current BIM Use process</h3>
The process doesn't have to be complicated. Let's think about it from first principles:<br />
<ol>
<li>Someone wants to use something for a specific purpose.</li>
<li>They say what that is and what they require for them to do it.</li>
<li>Whoever is best placed to provide that is identified.</li>
<li>Negotiations occur between the provider and user.</li>
<li>Agreement is reached on what processes will be followed.</li>
</ol>
<br />
But in the world of BIM planning the procedure is:<br />
<ol>
<li>An authority figure decides what BIM Use everyone wants.</li>
<li>They guess what is required to achieve these BIM Uses <br />(or use a "BIM expert" to guess).</li>
<li>They impose these requirements on everyone.</li>
<li>BIM authors, not the owner, decide what specific information they will provide for a BIM Use.</li>
</ol>
<br />
When confronted with the obvious impracticality the usual snake oil response from BIM evangelists is that "the BIM Execution Plan is a living document that can be changed." That might be a method to fix impractical outcomes but it doesn't justify why there is an impractical process in the first place.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A better BIM Use Process</h3>
That said negotiation is still the best method. It not only ensures everyone is doing things they are happy(ish) about, it provides an opportunity for everyone to have their say.<br />
<br />
But negotiations have to occur in a framework that is realistic. Pretending they can occur before everyone is appointed (or that everyone be appointed at the very beginning of a project - as in IPD), or that parties will agree when there is no incentive to do so (when only authors decide what "Authorized Uses" are permissible), is delusional.<br />
<br />
The owner should be the one to set up the framework, project participants the negotiating.<br />
<br />
Therefore the process for owner is:<br />
<ol>
<li>The owner lists the BIM Uses they intend to do. <br />- e.g. FM, budget management, etc.</li>
<li>The owner lists possible BIM Uses that others may do, and are desirable for the project.<br />- BIM Uses that may or may not be used on the project that participants may be called upon to provide BIM models capable of being utilized for. </li>
<li>The owner acts as arbitrator in participant negotiations.</li>
</ol>
Then as each project participant is engaged they must have shown the ability to satisfy the relevant owner's BIM Uses, and the capability to satisfy the the relevant possible BIM Uses. As the exact requirements of the possible BIM Uses are unknown, and may not even occur, fees do not need to specifically allow for them, ensuring owners are not paying for something they may never need, or that someone else (the BIM Use recipient) may pay for.<br />
<br />
As each project participant becomes involved in the project they are required be involved in a BIM Use identification and negotiation process:<br />
<div>
<ol>
<li>BIM Use request. <br />- A participant nominates what they intend to use BIM models for (including uses that the owner may have engaged them specifically to do).</li>
<li>Define and communicate data required. <br />- For each of their BIM Uses clearly describe what data they require and at what stages.</li>
<li>Identify source/author of data. <br />- Based on data required, and through negotiation, identify who will be generating the data, or who is best placed to create the data.</li>
<li>Agree on extent/format/form of data that will be provided. <br />- Negotiate with that party on what data they can provide, and/or are willing to provide.</li>
<li>Agree on process to supply data. <br />- Negotiate timing, degree of reliance (LOD) and checking & rectification procedures.</li>
</ol>
</div>
The owner may become involved at point 3 if there is dispute over who the appropriate author is, and at point 4 if agreement on extent of data can not be reached.<br />
<br />
If it is determined extra data is required the provider and recipient can exchange services (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours); the recipient pays (because it saves them money); or the owner pays (it adds value to the owner and/or project). Or it is not done as there is no measurable benefit.<br />
<br />
<br />
There you have it.<br />
There is obviously a lot of nuance around the detail but the above process is, to me, a more realistic way of approaching BIM Use management.<br />
It is not a radical proposal, nothing unfamiliar is introduced to BIM Execution Planning. Indeed most current BIM Planning guides would only require slight adjustment to formalize this approach.<br />
<br />
Let's take BIM from the theorists and make it genuinely practical.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-48163661630135790882015-10-30T10:48:00.000+11:002015-10-30T10:48:56.322+11:00Should Owners ask for BIM?There is this idea in the BIM evangelist community that owners, the ones who commission a facility, should specify what BIM is to be used on a project. Not just what BIM will be delivered to them, but how BIM will be used by everyone involved in the project.<br />
<br />
To me it makes no sense. Do you tell your dentist what instruments to use, your accountant which software (or calculator) to use, your lawyer which case law to take heed of?<br />
<br />
And I suspect owners are just as perplexed. Why are they being asked whether the structural engineer should use the BIM model for structural analysis, whether the contractor should use 4D, 5D, field BIM? Aren't they paying these experts to make those decisions?<br />
<br />
Actually I know they are just as perplexed. I've sat in meetings and workshops where the owner's representatives are bombarded with these types of questions, and not surprisingly they don't want to answer them. They're smart people, it not that they don't understand BIM, it is that they don't see themselves as the ones responsible for it.<br />
<br />
Yet that is how BIM evangelist see it. In their eyes the problem is owners don't understand BIM. After all the owner, as the one with the money, is the only party who has control over the whole team. Therefore, the evangelists surmise, they are the ONLY ones who can enforce BIM on a project. The fact they are unqualified, uninterested and don't see why they should take on that risk are wilfully ignored.<br />
<br />
Besides the absurd impractically of it, what also bothers me with this approach is the idea that BIM must be enforced. That BIM is only possible if all participants are coerced to engage in it. If that is the case it suggests BIM is only beneficial to a few, that others have to be forced as they gain nothing. This is so far from the truth. BIM processes improve efficiency and effectiveness of all participants. Sure it takes money up front to invest, time to learn new ways. But after that investment you can do more with less effort. As they say, work smarter, not harder.<br />
<br />
So if you are an owner, should you ask for BIM?<br />
<br />
<h3>
APPROACHES TO ASKING FOR BIM</h3>
There are a number of ways an owner can approach BIM on a project. The approach used will inform what processes need to be put in place for the project to be successful (in a BIM sense).<br />
<br />
<b><u>
Ignore BIM</u></b><br />
Totally ignore BIM, assume it doesn't exist and make no concessions for it to occur.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Allow BIM</u></b><br />
Accept BIM can occur and not stand in its way. Make concessions for it to happen.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Encourage BIM</u></b><br />
Appreciate BIM is worthwhile and actively encourage its use, but not directly engage in BIM processes.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Participate in BIM</u></b><br />
Integrate your own BIM processes into the BIM processes of others.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Demand BIM</u></b><br />
Enforce BIM of your own design on all project participants.<br />
<br />
All are valid approaches and depend on the particular circumstances of the project and the available people. But what is critical is that there is honesty in the approach taken. Don't pretend you are encouraging BIM when in fact you are ignoring it, don't demand BIM when all you need is to participate in it.<br />
<br />
Before deciding which approach seems right let's debunk some myths about BIM for owners.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM IS NOT JUST FM</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-2wqkucEh0UiiX4Oi-PRLScSyicywV6rBI20Am_6VvLYB-XzdQ64cRFRHHAoMsAnUYAk9YQqK5_jikmb8UK-0raSJye-8KBP5XOPyHcK4Oqdn-jN_Rc63eG9itJeQEOXyDrRc7kFyrVol/s1600/architecture-design-technology.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-2wqkucEh0UiiX4Oi-PRLScSyicywV6rBI20Am_6VvLYB-XzdQ64cRFRHHAoMsAnUYAk9YQqK5_jikmb8UK-0raSJye-8KBP5XOPyHcK4Oqdn-jN_Rc63eG9itJeQEOXyDrRc7kFyrVol/s400/architecture-design-technology.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
One of the misunderstanding going around (sometimes I think wilfully) is that BIM is equivalent to facilities management. That the only thing BIM means is the use of a 3D model connected to a database to manage the maintenance of a facility.<br />
<br />
At the extreme end of this view you have people who think that if you get the design and construction teams to use BIM you will have a fully functional BIM FM system at the end of the project.<br />
I don't understand how anyone could think this was true. Why would a BIM model created to design, analyse, and coordinate a building, or one to cost and program it be suitable for facilities management? Yet I have had clients say they want our Revit model provided to them, complete with paint modelled, so they can use it directly for facilities management.<br />
<br />
A lessor, but none the less just as mistaken view, is that the BIM done during design and construction is just there to provide the data for the FM system. And further, that if BIM is not used during design and construction it is not possible to have a BIM based FM system.<br />
<br />
Lets think about this a bit. To use BIM for facilities management you need a graphical 3D model and a database of information. You could pay someone to create the model and populate the database when you set up the FM system. Or you could get the whole design and construction team to change they way they do their work just so they produce a 3D model and populated database at the completion of their work.<br />
Does that second method really sound sensible? Why would you compromise a much bigger process (the design and construction of a facility) to reduce the effort of a smaller process (populate an FM database)? BIM evangelists go on about how much larger the cost of running a facility is compared to building it. But design and construction BIM can only ever contribute to the initial set up of the FM database, it has nothing to do with the ongoing operation.<br />
<br />
But BIM is not just FM. It is used for much more than that. And once that is realised the benefits can be captured.<br />
If design professionals use BIM for their processes, they will have a lot of data, including 3D graphical data. The contractor can utilize this data for their purposes and add data they use. This data won't be structured to suit FM, after all it has been created for other purposes. But there is a fair bit that can be used for FM. The cost of restructuring this data to suit FM is theoretically less than completely recreating it. That is the benefit of BIM.<br />
<br />
<br />
So don't ask for BIM if the only reason is to provide completed data for your FM system. There may be cheaper ways of doing it.<br />
<br />
And don't ask for BIM, or BIM deliverables, if you have a paper based rather than BIM based FM system (I know, kind of obvious, but surprisingly common).<br />
<br />
Do ask for it if you want to access to BIM data created for other purposes for your FM system.<br />
<br />
<h3>
DON'T KILL THE GOLDEN GOOSE</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9QYpYAqqLK_zvMJA7QbfYSIa1r60weewoRY2YU6C4SFRBwiZOrxp-J_RoHlDpucDlMTjLbi37k8RTGEpYC7qWm0ojI8_3GW5KQqucRkYD73q8-v4xferxIveoHDTlE9SRSsASTh5n_lx8/s1600/Goose-and-golden-egg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9QYpYAqqLK_zvMJA7QbfYSIa1r60weewoRY2YU6C4SFRBwiZOrxp-J_RoHlDpucDlMTjLbi37k8RTGEpYC7qWm0ojI8_3GW5KQqucRkYD73q8-v4xferxIveoHDTlE9SRSsASTh5n_lx8/s400/Goose-and-golden-egg.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Of course you may not have a BIM based FM system, nor intend to implement one. That's a commercial decision for the owner.<br />
If you don't need BIM for FM, why have BIM on the project at all?<br />
<br />
BIM is a tool, a tool to do real world things more efficiently and effectively. It is useful for anyone who uses it properly and for the right reasons.<br />
<br />
If your design and construction teams use BIM on your project there is an opportunity for the project to be done more efficiently and effectively. You, as the owner, benefits from a project that is less likely to suffer delays, is less likely to spring surprise additional costs, and will result in a building with a higher quality of design and workmanship.<br />
<br />
So if you want a well run project you will want BIM to be used.<br />
<br />
But the owner is not responsible for timing, cost overruns and building quality. The design and construction team, via their contracts, have these responsibilities. And if the owner instructs them on how to do their job, how to undertake their responsibilities, the owner takes on some of those responsibilities.<br />
<br />
<h3>
ENCOURAGING BIM</h3>
<div>
The best way an owner can ensure BIM is used is to not dictate, not enforce, but to encourage BIM. How might this be done?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGALw_XAfIsULGJvX2ha6r04lBEws973H5fEIsaFBI2ikpxSl1_Zd43K_mscyFxkEXz3cgOzL9OhkqNnyIl0zD42PdlcY0cG1KegDpJwFXOfcU1WZDp55UkukRbfxE0TFqH6jOC_x4CKOm/s1600/business_meeting-discussion-corporate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGALw_XAfIsULGJvX2ha6r04lBEws973H5fEIsaFBI2ikpxSl1_Zd43K_mscyFxkEXz3cgOzL9OhkqNnyIl0zD42PdlcY0cG1KegDpJwFXOfcU1WZDp55UkukRbfxE0TFqH6jOC_x4CKOm/s400/business_meeting-discussion-corporate.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<h4>
SELECTION</h4>
The first step in encouraging BIM is to engage BIM capable professionals, to include BIM capabilities in bid requirements.<br />
By that I don't mean a description of what BIM processes a bidder must undertake, but a request the bidders provide a description of the BIM processes they already do. In this early period of BIM take up you may extend this to include BIM processes bidders intend or are prepared to implement.<br />
The aim is to get them to make an offer, for the use of BIM to be their responsibility.<br />
<br />
But keep in mind BIM is but one aspect of why you select a particular bidder. Professionals are primarily engaged for their capabilities in their area of expertise, and service performance. BIM is only a tool, it won't compensate for lack of expertise or poor service.<br />
<h4>
AGREEMENTS & CONTRACTS</h4>
The second step is to ensure agreements and contractual arrangements allow BIM processes to work freely. As mentioned above all BIM processes (except facilities management) are between the design and construction teams. This is a challenge for those drawing up and approving agreements. Traditionally contracts have been designed to be between the person paying and the one doing the work. BIM capable agreements require additional clauses that set out how those being paid will interact with third parties - other project participants.<br />
<br />
Obviously there are a whole raft of issues to consider, and the type of BIM processes undertaken will influence what specific requirements will be. Which is another complication. The owner is not a participant in these BIM processes (with the exception of facilities management), nor are the exact BIM processes known at the beginning of a project before everyone is signed up. <br />
The BIM evangelist's answer is to ignore reality and assume the owner HAS to be a BIM participant, and that everyone HAS to be signed up at the very beginning of a project (as evidenced by the push for Integrated Project Delivery type contracts).<br />
<br />
But it doesn't have to be this way. Contracts need do no more than ensure the free flow of information in BIM type format. That is, BIM information created by project participants must be freely available to all other project participants. Sounds simple but there is a paranoia about theft of intellectual property throughout the industry. The default position is to withhold information. Contracts need to specifically override this position.<br />
<br />
Tied in with this is that all information in deliverables must match. That information on drawings and schedules match information in BIM models. And that recipients of BIM models can rely on the information in those models. It must also be specified this only applies to information a participant would ordinarily provide. If an architect includes some ducts in their model for context, that doesn't make them responsible for the completeness and accuracy of those ducts.<br />
<br />
Contracts could be further extended to be BIM friendly. For example allowing for project participants to do modelling for others participants, whilst responsibility is retained by the requesting party. So the architects might model ductwork for the mechanical engineers (or sub-contractor) but the engineers or sub-contractor must check and approve that modelling work.<br />
<br />
BIM capable agreements and contracts are in their infancy and no one can predict what their eventual form will be. But I believe if we approach them with a view to encouraging, or allowing BIM, rather than enforcing BIM, we will end up with much more useful agreements and therefore BIM workflows.<br />
<h4>
EVIDENCE OF BIM </h4>
Rather than demanding direct BIM deliverables they will never use owners should look at requesting evidence of BIM. Requesting evidence also means that even if specific BIM is not defined by owners they can still influence the use of it on their project.<br />
<br />
There is nothing wrong with requesting evidence of BIM processes as deliverables. The owner may not participate in the creation of a BIM Management Plan, but they can include it as a deliverable. They may not attend clash coordination meetings but minutes of outcomes can be requested.<br />
<br />
However evidence of BIM should never be provided for 'approval'. Not only does this pass some responsibility back on to the approver (the owner) but has the potential to hold up the project.<br />
The purpose is purely to ensure what has been promised (see SELECTION section above) is being done. An owner may reject a BIM Management Plan as being incomplete or inadequate, but should never 'approve' it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
REMUNERATION</h4>
BIM is often touted as 'costing more'. But research has shown overall a project using BIM processes is more cost efficient. It may be directly cheaper and/or quicker to build, or a more complex result is achievable for the same time and money.<br />
<br />
The problem is that not all participants share these cost savings equally. Which is easy to see when you look at how BIM works. BIM models are created early in a project and passed on to participants through the term of the project. The architect models the building, the mechanical engineer uses that model to do energy calculations, the mechanical engineer's model is passed on to the mechanical sub-contractor who uses it as a basis for shop drawing and CAM, this model is passed to the facilities manager to populate their energy management system. The further up the chain the more complete the model is and greater the savings in time and effort. And of course the owner is at the top of this chain.<br />
<br />
Another issue is some participants are required to do more than they have previously done. Engineers traditionally produce diagrammatic drawings and performance requirements for equipment. With BIM they have to model their work accurately and select specific components (otherwise you can't model them). Of course paying them extra to do this work is not the only solution. But someone has to do it, and no one is going to do it for free.<br />
<br />
BIM also requires more work up front. The mechanical engineer can't do an energy analysis on a half modelled building. If the point of BIM is to create a complete virtual building to test its buildability then it has to be completely designed and modelled before construction starts.<br />
<br />
BIM may 'cost more' for some, but overall it does not. So it is not necessarily about spending more (although that will certainly bolster use of BIM!). To encourage BIM there needs to be a re-think of where and when money is spent. More money is required at the pre-construction BIM model creation stage.<br />
This may be in the form of extra for design professionals, the appointment of additional professionals, or bringing forward engagements (e.g. services sub-contractors).<br />
And within those engagements payment schedules need to be revised. Fees are normally broken up into stages. With BIM more work is done - more hours expended - in early stages than traditional work methods.<br />
<br />
I don't believe a similar concession is required at construction as BIM processes bring enormous cost benefits to contractors. In fact I believe owners need to be careful they are not paying for BIM efficiencies that the contractor will pocket. Any BIM from the design team should be treated as an asset that benefits the contractor. <br />
<br />
<h4>
DIRECT ENCOURAGEMENT</h4>
And of course owners can directly encourage use of BIM. Not by demanding it, but by having a strong expectation that the team will use BIM processes. Owners don't need to have intimate knowledge of those processes, but they can expect their design and construction professionals do.<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
So what is the answer, should owners ask for BIM?<br />
As is the case with most questions, that depends. But here are some recommendations.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Ignore BIM</h4>
Not recommended. If you don't understand BIM or don't want it don't stand in the way of those that do. The fact others use it will not cost you more, nor will it increase your workload.<br />
<h4>
Allow BIM</h4>
If you are unsure and don't really understand much about BIM this is a valid approach. It provides an opportunity to learn from others.<br />
<h4>
Encourage BIM</h4>
Encouraging BIM is the best approach if the owner does not have a BIM based FM system. It allows the design and construction team to make best use of BIM for their purposes. It also creates a wealth of BIM data. It is not structured for FM use, but can still be mined for useful FM data.<br />
<h4>
Participate in BIM</h4>
A truly BIM project has everyone participating in BIM, including the owner. Owners can participate by having their own properly set up FM system that uses BIM.<br />
Having skin in the game, so to speak, means BIM deliverables can be properly valued as to their worth. And if everyone is a participant BIM planning can be undertaken with confidence, and result in even greater benefits than individual use of BIM brings.<br />
<h4>
Demand BIM</h4>
Not recommended. Unless you are a conglomerate with architects, engineers and contractors all under the same roof you should not be dictating what BIM is done. Even then care must be taken to ensure some participants are not working inefficiently for questionable benefits elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-31612588000416497462015-08-29T13:14:00.000+10:002015-08-29T13:14:04.097+10:00Everyday BIMThis month 3 years ago, <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/introduction.html" target="_blank">August 2012</a>, I started the practicalBIM blog.<br />
My original intention was to blog about practical ways to make BIM work. But when I started reviewing the literature on BIM I became alarmed at the misunderstandings and direction BIM was heading. It soon became apparent that as well as things that should be done to make BIM work, there are also things that should NOT be done to make BIM work (or at least not more work than it needs to be).<br />
<br />
It seems to me the misuse of BIM stems from some basic conceptual misunderstandings, (or intentional misconstructions) of BIM. If I believe these people are mistaken, what is my conception of BIM? How and why is it different?<br />
So on this anniversary I thought it timely to do a post setting out my views on BIM; not special, world changing BIM, just ordinary Everyday BIM. <br />
<br />
First some thoughts on what BIM is not.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is not A UTOPIA</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnKwEQ7drBga88rDXeI_oXMLGrVYLoTk-jJ6kErnQ2hdVKGNKSVs0EdAN-GwQXanUJ5Vc4MQGoieHSivAwGIT2TQLcTDedFq2v-BRcFebEXiyyafWlT91UbSA_B4MJoEAgAK9uN3E-xNNT/s1600/Utopia_Tianjing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnKwEQ7drBga88rDXeI_oXMLGrVYLoTk-jJ6kErnQ2hdVKGNKSVs0EdAN-GwQXanUJ5Vc4MQGoieHSivAwGIT2TQLcTDedFq2v-BRcFebEXiyyafWlT91UbSA_B4MJoEAgAK9uN3E-xNNT/s320/Utopia_Tianjing.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
BIM is a set of processes that manages certain technologies. It is, and always will be, changing. As new technologies become possible new process will evolve. And it will eventually be superseded by a new acronym for a different approach, just as BIM superseded CAD.<br />
There is no end, no point in the future where BIM will be perfected and stabilized.<br />
<br />
Why is this important to appreciate? If you are adopting BIM under the assumption it is a one off exercise that leads to an amazing outcome you will be sorely disappointed. If you are waiting for BIM to reach perfection before adopting it you will be waiting forever.<br />
There will be improvements, but the perfection promised will never arrive, and the need for further changes will not evaporate.<br />
BIM is not an end in itself. It is a process of continuing improvement.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is not AN EXCUSE FOR SOCIAL ENGINEERING</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinp8hxauYxpMM4ccjWH3hulv7XD5Kmse2IqK1q-dyLJQVTepGj6cE_pA2BiUOYaay48kj8rCOmoWjYmZFsNqPm9I21-UBMo_JlXDGla4tqh0ElfR-qlZSsCvwksqvi5yoGGe7Oe6jTQNAQ/s1600/North-Korean-Army-005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinp8hxauYxpMM4ccjWH3hulv7XD5Kmse2IqK1q-dyLJQVTepGj6cE_pA2BiUOYaay48kj8rCOmoWjYmZFsNqPm9I21-UBMo_JlXDGla4tqh0ElfR-qlZSsCvwksqvi5yoGGe7Oe6jTQNAQ/s320/North-Korean-Army-005.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
There is a myth a particular type of contractual arrangement is required for BIM to work, so called Integrated Project Delivery. This is allied with a work arrangement being called "Project Team Integration".<br />
There is nothing wrong with Integrated Project Delivery, its aims of shared responsibility, risk and decision making is laudable. But just as you don't need to use BIM to achieve these aims (e.g. The <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/41506/" target="_blank">National Museum of Australia</a> used CAD), using BIM doesn't require IPD.<br />
<br />
The insistence that the construction industry must move to IPD type contracts and work arrangements for BIM is a naked attempt to use BIM as a driver to improve the way the way the industry works. This is great for bettering the AECO industry but detrimental to BIM adoption. BIM is not the only, and certainly not the most critical, driver in the selection of contractual arrangements. Making the assumption IPD is necessary for BIM leads to BIM not being considered for projects that require other contractual arrangements for reasons other than BIM.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is not RESTRICTED TO ALL IN ONE SOLUTIONS</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilLfS0iOSe7XLrFdBcQOYBf2E1mHVIUwYe6Y9wVaBCAZg18lMSKVl77NJf-7L5g4vWmc5QY1D6dMRN3oRtTnMGWRygxqOozy2cq9MTMcdQQwlUwC3Zgphpuc-Bo0-cRIQ2TJOip8dEXwes/s1600/callcenterhell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilLfS0iOSe7XLrFdBcQOYBf2E1mHVIUwYe6Y9wVaBCAZg18lMSKVl77NJf-7L5g4vWmc5QY1D6dMRN3oRtTnMGWRygxqOozy2cq9MTMcdQQwlUwC3Zgphpuc-Bo0-cRIQ2TJOip8dEXwes/s320/callcenterhell.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
There is an underlying assumption that a BIM model must become a single unified 'thing' ("Integrated Data Environment"), and that all BIM processes must be under the control of one entity.<br />
This view is promoted by the UK Levels of BIM Maturity (as per the Bew Richards diagram), where 'Level 3' BIM is an integrated web based solution (so called 'iBIM').<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQeetNbyBi-8wf-E-vKOdn_-nXRFCbgBzy_Mu8LS2BSJpOcmUifORN5rLxIbie7cHS_YzNpiqAPwFBGQTcnsuXQqtNObYRcCtPjGJQrlgGf_i2qFbohuiyGDRgnm086gUOopCpGNbD8Ocw/s1600/BIMlevelsOfMaturity.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQeetNbyBi-8wf-E-vKOdn_-nXRFCbgBzy_Mu8LS2BSJpOcmUifORN5rLxIbie7cHS_YzNpiqAPwFBGQTcnsuXQqtNObYRcCtPjGJQrlgGf_i2qFbohuiyGDRgnm086gUOopCpGNbD8Ocw/s400/BIMlevelsOfMaturity.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The only realistic way this can happen is if all participants use the same platform, or all rigorously comply to the same Standards, (assuming multiple platforms will be able to communicate via data that adheres to Standards).<br />
<br />
Whilst it is true greater efficiencies are theoretically possible by tight integration of all aspects of design, construction and operation, there are consequences of this approach that are being ignored.<br />
<br />
Forcing all participants use the same platform will lead to inefficiencies amongst individual parties. Each of us make choices about technologies and processes that are the most efficient at fulfilling our responsibilities. And because of competition the best available comes into common use. These individual actions add up to an efficient and cost effective overall process. Any 'all in one' platform will never contain the best in breed across all disciplines.<br />
The result of this approach will be the dominance of proprietary software monopolies, a situation all the software houses are currently scrambling to take advantage of. <br />
<br />
The requirement for such tight integration will also encourage the ascendancy of large multi-disciplinary firms and vertical integration into AECO conglomerates. Say good-bye to the bespoke architectural design firm, medium size contractors and specialist sub-contractors.<br />
<br />
The expectation that iBIM will be possible through the use of Standards is just a fantasy, more on that below.<br />
<br />
The whole idea of iBIM is analogous to a command economy. In theory a fully managed economy with centralized decision making should be more efficient. But in practice a market where individuals make the decisions is more efficient. Blatantly demonstrated when the USSR collapsed, and more recently the problems in Venezuela.<br />
<br />
BIM is a set of processes that manages certain technologies. There is no reason those processes can not be tailored to suit ways of working that maintain the efficiencies of a market approach.<br />
<br />
That is not to say iBIM is not a realistic prospect, nor that it will never happen. The problem is when it is assumed it will be the ONLY future for effective BIM.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is not A BUNCH OF STANDARDS</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlaDBdKOFEROOvhzlktH-_9QsZ_euFyLjgXwYqIFz1fUtv95cr4kmhK8D0gSP_j0xXqkOkxrB0dmlyuVVJdoGtCVmXeCCUnYwLInyRAXpuKzRxoTN8mRsFxg7sREAjeC4AIxf5150FF3Gs/s1600/StandardsOverview.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlaDBdKOFEROOvhzlktH-_9QsZ_euFyLjgXwYqIFz1fUtv95cr4kmhK8D0gSP_j0xXqkOkxrB0dmlyuVVJdoGtCVmXeCCUnYwLInyRAXpuKzRxoTN8mRsFxg7sREAjeC4AIxf5150FF3Gs/s320/StandardsOverview.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
There is an enormous expectation that Standards will make BIM not just more efficient, but in the minds of many BIM will not be truly possible until Standards are in universal use.<br />
<br />
Now, I believe Standards are a good thing, which is why I follow their development so closely. But they are not the panacea they are portrayed to be. And the main reasons are inherent in how Standards are created.<br />
<br />
Standards take a long time to be developed and agreed. Most work on Standards around the world is done for free by volunteers. The process for approving Standards is also unpaid and requires many people, often from widely dispersed places, to come together. This is particularly pertinent for technology dependent processes like BIM where Standards trail current practice not by years but by decades.<br />
Because Standard creation and agreement is largely unrewarded the best and brightest, most experienced, are not attracted to participate. Although it does tends to attract academics, where their participation does bring reputational rewards. They may be the brightest, but lack practical experience and tend to create obtuse documents no-one else but fellow academics can comprehend.<br />
<br />
So Standards invariably document out of date practices in a manner that can not be understood by those who are supposed to follow them.<br />
<br />
I don't see how it will ever be possible to entirely rely on Standards and their adherence to deliver BIM. Processes and conventions developed by individual people, firms and project teams will always pay a major role in BIM. Just as proprietary software and formats will always be at the forefront of BIM technology. <br />
Standards development should focus on supporting market driven BIM, not be put forward as BIM itself.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is not A WAY TO GET OTHERS TO DO YOUR WORK</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSJqMtjTzTU95rMLAOeMLRVYgydXcIUEKaZHBL7L1Z8Al2I2iFXSvzxars6pKwdqkQLal6zAfy3zBltJ2-MwWwq4AUc43VJxSZE8bxZA8NJrmcp3gIbMy1H3h6KDL7R3dpETYuif2EKbiI/s1600/animal_farm-russian-style.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSJqMtjTzTU95rMLAOeMLRVYgydXcIUEKaZHBL7L1Z8Al2I2iFXSvzxars6pKwdqkQLal6zAfy3zBltJ2-MwWwq4AUc43VJxSZE8bxZA8NJrmcp3gIbMy1H3h6KDL7R3dpETYuif2EKbiI/s200/animal_farm-russian-style.jpg" width="153" /></a></div>
BIM is often portrayed as a process where some-one will provide some-one else with a product that reduces that persons work. For example a facilities manager who receives a BIM model will gain a record of the constructed building that can be used to manage it.<br />
<br />
Whilst this is broadly true, this is interpreted to mean that the provider will do the work of the receiver. That if the facilities manager can't directly use the BIM model, use BIM data to populate their FM database, the provider has not done their job properly.<br />
This is propagated by the myth that a BIM model can be used for any purpose, even if created for a specific purpose. An architect creates a BIM model to communicate what is to be constructed, not to manage a built facility (in any case they wouldn't know how to - architects are not facility managers).<br />
And if a BIM model can be used for any purpose, there is no requirement to pay some-one to make it fit for particular purpose. So there is an expectation this work being done on the receiver's behalf is free.<br />
<br />
I can see no justification for this belief, yet is surprisingly common among owners. It is often a roadblock to BIM adoption. An owner wants BIM, but doesn't expect to pay for it. When a cost is put on it by the AECO participants BIM gets dropped in its entirety. The project becomes a 'non-BIM' project and BIM is actively discouraged.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
So what is BIM?<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is A CONCEPT</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCj7TRZvYUmDxxfFt-cuTe4lgimhZM6gimSMmK2v5JxoIBK4mMY7ZIiyTac7YhvwicLZcCG6hbamPU1HjjQNEvcFvtvACL9nt2Zs3Q8J_Pzyo9DdFklFjL3nfl9a6maBSAohV5zrmhQZn/s1600/DrawingVsModel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCj7TRZvYUmDxxfFt-cuTe4lgimhZM6gimSMmK2v5JxoIBK4mMY7ZIiyTac7YhvwicLZcCG6hbamPU1HjjQNEvcFvtvACL9nt2Zs3Q8J_Pzyo9DdFklFjL3nfl9a6maBSAohV5zrmhQZn/s400/DrawingVsModel.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
At its core BIM is a concept - the idea that the physical building, systems within it and processes used to realize it are modelled before a building is built.<br />
This sounds simple but is a paradigm shift from how most architects and engineers view their deliverables. The norm is to privilege drawings - that the firm's output are drawings. Of course their real output, and what everyone else expects, is information. Drawings merely communicate this information, they are nothing more than a tool.<br />
When training CAD users to use BIM software the biggest hurdle is to get them to understand that the drawing is not the most important aspect. To get them to stop obsessing over line weights and concentrate on ensuring wall definitions reflect what the wall is to be constructed from.<br />
<br />
Once people get it - that their job is to model, not to draw, everything becomes much easier.<br />
And if you don't understand this, you will never use BIM to its full potential.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is TECHNOLOGY</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic4TYRwXLPFa8sO1lwG5ZoqGOOwhoKG2lrZvs4OivKXMhAe6IMvFm3iRF5WRI4pPlRsjWvrqz2Ib03oE9QvrW9K1KcLfEUAxuns6HPn8hCe2-ZvfkYbs-ZI-zXhmW1Jn8zkUQdtXn5Cn6J/s1600/CadCamLarsH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic4TYRwXLPFa8sO1lwG5ZoqGOOwhoKG2lrZvs4OivKXMhAe6IMvFm3iRF5WRI4pPlRsjWvrqz2Ib03oE9QvrW9K1KcLfEUAxuns6HPn8hCe2-ZvfkYbs-ZI-zXhmW1Jn8zkUQdtXn5Cn6J/s320/CadCamLarsH.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The degree BIM is possible is dependent on available technologies - software and hardware. When I first started using AutoCAD in the 1980's I got excited when I saw you could use layer names to describe what elements represented. Back then that was all we had available, but it was still a form of BIM.<br />
<br />
It is often said that BIM is process, not software. Whilst this is true BIM is process that manages softwares. Therefore BIM processes are limited to what software can do.<br />
It is pointless developing BIM processes and Standards that are independent of available technology. Pointless because no-one can use actually them, or are forced to invent elaborate and time consuming workarounds that mimic those impractical processes.<br />
<br />
BIM is in practical terms technology. Ignore this fact and you will soon paint yourself into a corner.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is PROCESSES</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzBZH_GDubYKvTjfITITH_zGR_Y3NuofnhHsrbulitwz5oEVRaGvjPnJpVcwA4TBCgyMS6X-fmSI96hG9lnhRzAZfGnklwU0mKoV-yPfq1xsDh4Q_wu6oWltY0r1Sh6bkkaLcEJEafMCUB/s1600/Molecule_Caffeine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzBZH_GDubYKvTjfITITH_zGR_Y3NuofnhHsrbulitwz5oEVRaGvjPnJpVcwA4TBCgyMS6X-fmSI96hG9lnhRzAZfGnklwU0mKoV-yPfq1xsDh4Q_wu6oWltY0r1Sh6bkkaLcEJEafMCUB/s200/Molecule_Caffeine.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
BIM is a set of processes that manages AECO technologies. Individual processes that can be linked to and linked from other processes. Processes that work in parallel, branch off and have different outcomes, a bit like they way a molecule is structured. BIM is not one single linear process that will only work if all parts are in use.<br />
Any part of the design, construction or operations of a building can use BIM. It doesn't have to be used all the time for every task.<br />
While it is true some processes aren't possible if other processes are not being used, it does not necessarily follow that one process justifies the implementation of all its precursor processes.<br />
Nor is the fact a particular BIM process is not being used reason enough to not use other BIM processes.<br />
<br />
BIM entails multiple processes, each of which should be justifiable for its own sake.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM is OPPORTUNITY</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBltaZiLtVrFUdZ3pc2YhW-DmzT-JPe9Sy8h6KI-zhoTpbEuzR3glDfKG3r4f2QYZxxlKYxmhpslioLbIAlz9ErBbb_0pgFn6NEOsreKfnQ46h2-8H5EqvEhYHIXrropTiTNSvVIY2DpYK/s1600/Handshake91498484.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBltaZiLtVrFUdZ3pc2YhW-DmzT-JPe9Sy8h6KI-zhoTpbEuzR3glDfKG3r4f2QYZxxlKYxmhpslioLbIAlz9ErBbb_0pgFn6NEOsreKfnQ46h2-8H5EqvEhYHIXrropTiTNSvVIY2DpYK/s1600/Handshake91498484.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The original intent of BIM was that by capturing work in a digital format it would be more useful to those that utilized the results of that work.<br />
It was never intended to mean that BIM is a new, additional task that produces the raw data required by others to do their work. That BIM data provided will be structured to suit the work processes of others.<br />
<br />
The workflow envisage was that some-one provided their BIM model to some-one else, who then extracted and restructured the information they required. The provider remains responsible for their data - that it represents their area of expertise and deliverables, but they are not accountable for its use by others for purposes outside of their responsibilities.<br />
<div>
<br />
A services engineer provides a BIM model of ductwork to the contractor, which the contractor may use to create fabrication BIM. If there is an error in the fabrication model it is not the services engineer's responsibility, but if there is an error in the capacity sizing provided it is. If architects model a building in 3D, and the structural and services engineers do the same, then this provides sufficient information to use software to check for clashes.<br />
Providing someone with BIM data gives that person the opportunity to use it for their purposes. It may require validation and adjustment, but it is still usable and useful.<br />
<br />
What BIM does is provide an opportunity for improved efficiency and quality of outcome through the availability of data. And this is best done through fostering cooperation and collaboration, not rigid demands, especially from those outside the immediate process. </div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
EVERYDAY BIM</h3>
How might this approach be used everyday for real projects in the real world?<br />
Some general suggestions:<br />
<h4>
OWNERS:</h4>
Restrict BIM demands to things you need directly (e.g. asset management), and to ensure general BIM proficiency (e.g within discipline expectations like drawing and schedules generated from BIM).<br />
Don't make BIM data a deliverable if you don't need it yourself, instead include engagement contract clauses that allow for the exchange of data between project participants.<br />
<br />
<h4>
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS:</h4>
Use BIM capable software in the way it is designed to be used.<br />
Document how you structure your data and make both the description and data available to others.<br />
<br />
<h4>
CONTRACTORS:</h4>
Take advantage of the BIM data available on a project.<br />
Foster BIM processes, along with cooperation and collaboration across project participants.<br />
<br />
<h4>
TRADES:</h4>
Embody BIM processes in supply chain and work management. Tailor those processes to take advantage of available BIM data.<br />
Allow others to use the data you produce.<br />
<br />
<h4>
FACILITY MANAGEMENT:</h4>
Develop FM solutions that take advantage of available BIM data.<br />
Become involved before facility handover so you can make your requirements known to others.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Notice I haven't mentioned Standards. That is not because Standards are never useful or don't have a place. It is because Standards should only be used if they are beneficial; if they assist in achieving the underlying aims. The decision to use Standards has to come from project participants, the ones who create and use BIM data, the only ones who can assess their usefulness.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
I hope you find these general suggestions helpful, even if they are perhaps too brief to be truly practical, something I will aim to ameliorate in future posts.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-24597899113172709312015-07-28T16:14:00.000+10:002015-07-30T07:54:58.610+10:00Procuring BIM - PAS 1192-2 and acif PTII feel sorry for owners and managers who need to make decisions about BIM on a project.<br>
The information available is vague; it is hard to extract practical advice that can be acted upon. And confusing, mixing up BIM issues with management practices that have nothing to do with BIM.<br>
<br>
<h3>
PAS 1192-2</h3>
I recently worked my way through the UK PAS 1192-2:2013. Full title: <a href="http://shop.bsigroup.com/forms/PASs/PAS-1192-2/" target="_blank">Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling</a>.<br>
It is a "<a href="http://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigate-by/PAS/" target="_blank">Publicly Available Specification</a>", which are documents created for a sponsor by the <a href="http://www.bsigroup.com/" target="_blank">British Standards Institution</a> (BSI). In this case the sponsor was the UK <a href="http://cic.org.uk/" target="_blank">Construction Industry Council</a> (CIC). Not that the BSI do all the work. The PAS is done via consultation and a number organizations have been involved (24 are acknowledged). It was published in February 2013 and is 68 pages.<br>
<br>
Its audience "<i>includes businesses and those responsible for the procurement, design, construction, delivery, operation and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure assets.</i>"<br>
<br>
What interested me is that PAS-1192-2 is an attempt to holistically capture BIM processes from beginning to end of a construction project. It is one of the few examples which tries to proscribe how to commence a BIM project, how to create a BIM brief.<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVSJxKNY1qluMU2jURuAeUdTw9wrHJho8_90-udr6O6fuvWe6zcsyjaSkt9gW7n_G_kk6xu9Ixij5JUi_OBObVKYBM30Sr5GNI5xWSpcsi1Tj1AGtUcSU_4YoxduhA_DjLIZIdKhcGOYr1/s1600/PAS1192-2cover300pix.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVSJxKNY1qluMU2jURuAeUdTw9wrHJho8_90-udr6O6fuvWe6zcsyjaSkt9gW7n_G_kk6xu9Ixij5JUi_OBObVKYBM30Sr5GNI5xWSpcsi1Tj1AGtUcSU_4YoxduhA_DjLIZIdKhcGOYr1/s1600/PAS1192-2cover300pix.png"></a></div>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h3>
acif BIM & PTI</h3>
The other documents I recently slogged through were a series on BIM by the <a href="https://www.acif.com.au/" target="_blank">Australasian Construction Industry Forum</a> (<b>acif</b> - they prefer lowercase), a peak body of peak bodies, including the likes of <a href="http://www.propertyoz.com.au/" target="_blank">The Property Council</a>, <a href="http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/" target="_blank">Engineers Australia</a>, <a href="http://www.masterbuilders.com.au/" target="_blank">Master Builders</a>, <a href="https://www.fma.com.au/" target="_blank">Facilities Management Association</a> to name a few. The BIM documents are authored by the <a href="https://www.acif.com.au/resources/strategic-forum-for-building-and-construction" target="_blank">Strategic Forum</a> for the Australasian Building and Construction Industry, a body within the <b>acif</b> that that "<i>brings together key stakeholders</i>".<br>
<br>
Documents include:<br>
<a href="http://www.acif.com.au/resources/strategic-forum-for-building-and-construction/a-framework-for-the-adoption-of-project-team-integration-and-building-information-modelling" target="_blank">A Framework for the Adoption of Project Team Integration & BIM</a>, published December 2014, acknowledges 11 participants, and is 60 pages.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.acif.com.au/resources/strategic-forum-for-building-and-construction/building-and-construction-procurement-guide-project-team-integration-and-building-information-modelling-bim" target="_blank">Building and Construction Procurement Guide: Project Team Integration and Building Information Modelling (BIM)</a>, published June 2015, acknowledges 8 participants, 56 pages.<br>
<div>
<br></div>
These documents essentially cover the same ground, with the later one containing marginally more specific 'advice'.<br>
The first "<i>is designed to guide and assist industry stakeholders in the adoption and implementation of PTI and BIM.</i>"<br>
The later "<i>is to provide asset owners and project procurers with an outline of potential procurement practices, processes and steps which might be followed in developing effective procurement strategies for implementation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Project Team Integration (PTI) on specific projects within the built environment.</i>"<br>
<br>
There are also two documents on Project Team Integration (PTI): <a href="http://www.acif.com.au/resources/strategic-forum-for-building-and-construction/the-case-for-project-team-integration" target="_blank">The Case for Project Team Integration</a> and <a href="http://www.acif.com.au/resources/strategic-forum-for-building-and-construction/project-team-integration-workbook" target="_blank">Project Team Integration Workbook</a><br>
<br>
Despite their titles and self descriptions all of the <b>acif</b> documents are more BIM and IPT sales pitches than practical advice or structured workflows.<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWSX0LxmlF3f-pitmXBGQANUzpBRgW9XdoXUQcftBPx-jF7VK2dq0Vr5CJlPzgh_zzX5_9oTgwzKPvfgXGIzKCRam7nM_8x8I_OfI06SsKnuY_IzD6Ny7MJO5XC6JUYWhYrNQ6Z2-v4VpG/s1600/acifBIMandPTI_607pix.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWSX0LxmlF3f-pitmXBGQANUzpBRgW9XdoXUQcftBPx-jF7VK2dq0Vr5CJlPzgh_zzX5_9oTgwzKPvfgXGIzKCRam7nM_8x8I_OfI06SsKnuY_IzD6Ny7MJO5XC6JUYWhYrNQ6Z2-v4VpG/s1600/acifBIMandPTI_607pix.png"></a></div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is interesting to look at these documents side by side as the UK is heading for mandatory BIM, whereas Australia is, well, on its own. The current federal government doesn't believe anything needs to be done about global warming, so BIM is way too avant-garde for them to even comprehend, let alone mandate.<br>
But governments change, and what the <b>acif</b> is spruiking may end up in the form that PAS-1192-2 takes, or indeed the wholesale implementation of an unchanged PAS 1192-2.<br>
<br>
So how do they stack up?<br>
<br>
<h3>
AN EASY READ?</h3>
In a word, no.<br>
<br>
PAS 1192-2 is acronym city. I had to spend a lot of time memorizing the myriad of abbreviations:<br>
BEP, TIDP, MIDP, RM, PlM, PIP, SCCS, SMP, CPix, EIR, Capex, Opex, CDE gates, RACI, WIP, AIM, CDM, and not only LOD but also LOI.<br>
<br>
Although PAS 1192-2 has a glossary, not every acronym is listed. It wasn't until page 13 that I found out what PAS stood for.<br>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
Terminology varies to a frustrating extent. You kind of expect some variances, particularly as PAS 1192-2 is from the UK, <b>acif</b> documents from Australia. But the authors seem to revel in creating their own unique terms. The Owner is called "Employer" in PAS 1192-2, "Project Sponsor" in <b>acif </b>documents. <b>acif</b> have invented a new term for Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) - "Project Team Integration" (PTI). They explain that PTI is a more generic term, IPD being a form of contract rather than a description. I don't see it. IPD is already a term in use in Australia, and perfectly adequate. Why invent a new one?<br>
<br>
PAS 1192-2 is a document you study - take notes, reread sections, draw your own diagrams, google a lot (to find out what the acronyms mean). Just reading it will leave you confused and be of no practical benefit. A lot of thought has gone in to it, but golly, does BIM have to be this complicated?</div>
<div>
<br>
The <b>acif</b> documents are easier to read - if you can stay awake. The same things are constantly repeated, not just within documents, also across documents. There is really no point reading the Framework document, the same information is repeated in the Building and Construction Procurement Guide.<br>
<br>
But to be fair all documents of these types are tedious to read. Both sets of documents are extremely well structured, have good contents pages, glossaries and definitions. And unfortunately repeating information is de rigueur for these types of reference documents.<br>
<br>
<h3>
REALISTIC WORKFLOWS, OBJECTIVES?</h3>
PAS 1192-2 describes workflows, the <b>acif</b> documents really describes objectives, and now and again, if you know what to look for, actions to achieve objectives.<br>
Generally both have a good grasp of BIM, with inklings of evidence there are at least some people involved with direct experience. But there are some areas that I believe push the bounds of practicality. <br>
<br>
<h4>
PRE-TENDER BIM PLAN</h4>
The requirement for a pre-tender BIM plan in PAS 1192-2 is unrealistic. I don't see how this is even possible unless the tender process is severely limited to only seeking bids from consortiums. A BIM plan needs all parties to get together to agree on a plan. How can this be done at tender or RFT stage when multiple parties are bidding for the same work? If it is enforced it sets up an environment where collusion could run rife. All those tenders getting together and just discussing BIM?<br>
Unless, that is, PAS 1192-2 really means something other than a traditional BIM plan. I searched for this possibility but could find nothing that suggested otherwise.<br>
<br>
But I smell a rat. Although PAS 1192-2 explicitly states it is suitable for all contract types the underlying assumption that comes through is that only IPD (Integrated Project Delivery), Alliance and other combined risk contracts are suitable for BIM.<br>
<br>
This assumption is also explicit in the <b>acif </b>documents. Their introduction of a new acronym - IPT, (Integrated Project Team), and the time spent extolling its virtues belie their underlying intent. More on that below. <br>
<br>
<h4>
GATEWAYS OR BLOCKAGES</h4>
PAS 1192-2 includes "Gateways", where BIM data is approved before the data is released for use by others. This is not a new invention brought about by BIM, many QA processes already contain such procedures.<br>
Hold and review points are good in theory, but if not structured and managed carefully can end up being blockage points instead. In my experience the reality does not always match the intent:<br>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Adding review points should extend the program, but this never seems to happen (what owner volunteers to extend the completion date for the sake of a technology?). Instead work programs are condensed to unrealistic levels to the point that work continues into the review period, leading to poor work and inadequate checking.</li>
<li>Owners, or more usually the poor sods they appoint to oversee all this checking, don't want to take any additional responsibility (nor workload) so refuse to, or drag their feet in officially signing off on anything. So work continues on, as it has to, using unapproved deliverables.</li>
<li>Your boss sees checking as a non-productive use of time, so if some-one else is doing it why are you doing it? Leading to unchecked documents leaving the office. </li>
<li>Any review point is an opportunity for designers to "tweak" the design, leading to rushed reworking. </li>
</ul>
These problems can be addressed, but PAS 1192 seems ambitious when it comes to sign off at Gateways (which it admits may be difficult for "some contracts"). <br>
The problem in PAS 1192-2 is sign off is assumed to mean a shift of responsibility from author to approver. Any mistakes become the fault of the checker for not picking them up. Which means the checker must have expertise in the area they are checking. So an owner needs to appoint a second architect to check the primary architect's work, structural engineer, services engineer etc. Not very efficient.<br>
<br>
There is a trade off between mistake free documents and project progression. To ensure comprehensive and mistake free documents takes considerable time at each check point.<br>
A more practical approach would be to check only for completeness, the professional risk still being carried by the author. <br>
<br>
<h4>
VOLUMES</h4>
PAS 1192-2 has a concept it calls "Volumes". The idea is that the project is broken up in to a number of volumes (3D spaces) that are allocated to different project team members. The example of a rail tunnel is illustrated with linear volumes for different services.<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu8cD19YNM_n_gYlUP0hnokv1BFzSTmbRSM9WPxjeqt_u6ApPxbmo9hhlSPe-6DVjojjNjfi5rs5X8H3QxUbwkorcOaSyOi5SLaICwEHKluDFk6gITKsx-Zx8_VkfpTWN-vPN7xoMcXU-C/s1600/PAS1192-2volume01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu8cD19YNM_n_gYlUP0hnokv1BFzSTmbRSM9WPxjeqt_u6ApPxbmo9hhlSPe-6DVjojjNjfi5rs5X8H3QxUbwkorcOaSyOi5SLaICwEHKluDFk6gITKsx-Zx8_VkfpTWN-vPN7xoMcXU-C/s1600/PAS1192-2volume01.png"></a></div>
<br>
This may work for simple infrastructure but I don't see how it works on a even moderately complex building. Different services often share the same space (e.g. ceiling space). Allocating specific space for different purposes is possible, but is generally not the most efficient way to design a building.<br>
<br>
Further "<i>all members of the design team shall agree volumes as fully as possible at the start of the project</i>". How can you do this before designing the building? The allocation of space is a huge part of design, most of what an architect does. Does PAS 1192-2 assume the architect's work is complete before BIM is started?<br>
It wouldn't surprise me. There is a pervasive belief that BIM only starts once a contractor gets involved. Part of the absurd push for IPD (aka PTI): that BIM is only possible if the contractor is involved during design.<br>
<br>
How about the <b>acif</b> documents?<br>
These documents are mostly 'motherhood' statements with a sprinkling of useful advice.<br>
For example on page 31 of the Framework document out of 15 objectives;<br>
<ul>
<li>3 are general statements ("<i>the dismantling of traditional barriers or silos of effort</i>")</li>
<li>3 are not relevant to a project but to the industry as a whole ("<i>further development of national templates, content and Standards</i>")</li>
<li>2 are repeats of issues already stated.</li>
</ul>
So just over half are not useful. One wonders why they didn't have two lists of objectives, one for industry and one for practitioners.<br>
<br>
Recommendations made years ago reappear, like "<i>undertaking pilot projects to display the benefits of BIM</i>." Not more pilot projects! How many more BIM events must we sit through where all you get are syrupy presentations of (apparently) extraordinarily successful BIM projects.<br>
<br>
And there are contradictions. Under Asset Management "<i>Proposed Activities to deliver on Objective</i>" one 'activity' suggests another is not possible.<br>
How can:<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"A contractual obligation (clause) binding on all parties from initiation of a built project for the development, transfer and maintenance of an asset register across the asset life cycle.</i>"</blockquote>
be achieved until:<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>The asset/facilities management industry must define data sets and information asset register outcome requirements to enable the transition from design and construction to operation in a BIM environment</i>."</blockquote>
It is a classic chicken and egg situation. How can AEC team members provide something that is undefined?<br>
<br>
<h3>
THE COST</h3>
There is quite a bit of extra work for owners ("Employers") in PAS 1192-2. From being responsible for proscribing the entire BIM process to checking it has been complied with. To follow PAS 1192-2 owners will have to beef up their project management teams, not just in training and expertise, but in bodies on the ground to do the additional work.<br>
<br>
PAS 1192 also introduces a raft of extra requirements for tenders. Although the owner may not directly pay each tenderers for the additional work, the industry as a whole will need to recoup those added costs.<br>
<br>
COBie deliverables and assignation of Uniclass classification codes are mandatory, even though there may be no-one using these on the project. Why provide COBie if an FM solution is part of the construction contract and data can be placed directly into the chosen FM system? Sure, preference COBie and Uniclass coding where FM data and cost coding are required, but only if team members have no viable alternative.<br>
As I have written in earlier posts, both of these imposts create additional work. Work that needs to be paid for, whether directly paid for by the owner or as a cost to the industry as a whole.<br>
<br>
Sure BIM may bring savings elsewhere, but strict compliance to PAS 1992-2 will be an additional cost. Therefore be wary of statements like "must comply with PAS 1192-2". Owners making statements like this are adding possibly unnecessary costs to their projects, others with it in their contracts need to make sure they have allowed for the extra work in their bids.<br>
<br>
The <b>acif </b>documents are not proscriptive enough to identify where there might be additional costs. As they are primarily about introducing BIM the most obvious cost is in education and training. Although the implicit assumption throughout their documents that owners must take a bigger role in BIM is a potential additional cost for owners.<br>
<br>
<h3>
DOES BIM DRIVE THE FORM OF CONTRACT?</h3>
Building contracts are structured to achieve many outcomes, and attempt to create agreement on many issues, BIM is only one, and is by no means the most important. Yet both PAS 1192-2 and the <b>acif</b> documents assume that BIM processes can only be achieved under one contractual arrangement.<br>
<br>
Interestingly both PAS 1192-2 and the <b>acif</b> documents specifically state that they are contract neutral, <b>acif</b> documents even warning that owners ("Project Sponsors"):<br>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>... need to be careful that changing contractual arrangements for BIM doesn't lead to a degradation of other aspects - like design, innovative construction, innovative engineering solutions.</i>"</blockquote>
But when you read the documents as a whole it becomes obvious the only way the requirements (PAS 1192-2) and objectives (<b>acif</b> documents) can be met is with an IPD type contract.<br>
<br>
In the <b>acif </b>framework document there is a good description of different contract types, including existing "traditional" contracts. Then there is a table comparing contract types with their effect on BIM Implementation. Except they lumped all existing contract types together and compared them to alliancing ("<i>partnering</i>") and consortium ("<i>financing</i>") contracts. What would have been far more interesting, and actually useful, would be to compare BIM implementation between each of the existing contract types (Construct, D&C, Managed Contract, Construction Management etc.).<br>
<br>
l don't understand where this idea comes from that only certain types of contracts are suitable for BIM. Any contract type can use BIM. The truth is (as mentioned, but contradicted elsewhere in <b>acif</b> documents) the form of BIM is set by the type of contract, not the other way round.<br>
<br>
<h3>
BIM AS SOCIAL ENGINEERING</h3>
As mentioned PTI (Project Team Integration) is a substantial part of the <b>acif</b> documents. There is talk of PTI Protocols but I couldn't find anywhere that lists or describes what these protocols are. There is a list of their purpose, and why they are important but not what they are. Are they talking about specific existing protocols, future protocols, a protocol, or a series of protocols?<br>
<br>
I got excited when I found the <b>acif</b> <a href="http://www.acif.com.au/resources/strategic-forum-for-building-and-construction/project-team-integration-workbook" target="_blank">Project Team Integration Workbook</a>. A workbook, something practical, something that should tell me what PTI is.<br>
Sadly I was mistaken. It is a series of 18 tables of generic project management topics, like "Environment and Culture", "Project Leadership", "Wasted Effort". Each is divided into 5 colour coded columns, red is bad, blue is exemplary.<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxG2wDSW03SfL7VJu4d0b_U239QxS15woKRxzNUCipNQSRoPUKOn5QOEUXVwDlL838n1DI7Lh-aAJX8YD6mokb5qWm8CSom-L3BumkW9b2WnGNNckX8HxsKECLHEm2XjZ8slwDVF9s3-vy/s1600/acifPTI-3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxG2wDSW03SfL7VJu4d0b_U239QxS15woKRxzNUCipNQSRoPUKOn5QOEUXVwDlL838n1DI7Lh-aAJX8YD6mokb5qWm8CSom-L3BumkW9b2WnGNNckX8HxsKECLHEm2XjZ8slwDVF9s3-vy/s1600/acifPTI-3.png"></a></div>
<br>
You guessed it, existing contract types only appear in the red column, PTI type contracts dominates the blue. Amazing, doing PTI (whatever that entails) will miraculously make everyone a better manager!<br>
<br>
Choose PTI and your project goes</div>
<div>
<br>
from "<i>This is the worst project I've ever worked on in 30 years</i>" <br>
to "<i>This is the best project I've ever worked on</i>."</div>
<div>
<br>
from "<i>We're at war. The client's the enemy</i>"<br>
to "<i>We have the greatest respect and admiration for our client. He leads without interfering</i>."<br>
<br>
Hallelujah, praise to the god of BIM. All management sins will be washed away by accepting the wisdom of PTI.</div>
<div>
<br>
<h4>
WHAT IS THIS PTI?</h4>
</div>
<div>
In the <b>acif</b> Framework document section headed "Agreed definition of PTI and BIM" it states:</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
"<i>PTI is a process to facilitate integration and encourage collaborative behavior ...</i>"</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
But what is this process? It also states:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>PTI is a project delivery approach that encourages clients to engage a team (including design consultants and building contractors) at the earliest stages of a project to enhance the level of integration between them.</i>"</blockquote>
<div>
OK, the team gets together early. But what explicitly do they do that is different, to make it PTI instead of business as usual? Besides more motherhood statements like "<i>reduce waste</i>" and "<i>optimise project outcomes</i>" there is nothing about what specific procedures constitutes a "process".</div>
<div>
<br></div>
<div>
The give away is the word "collaborative". This is nothing more than another version of the "we must collaborate" myth I have written about in other posts. I do not know, and have been searching for, what I should be doing beyond what I, and the people I work with, already do to achieve this "collaboration". The only logical thing I can get a firm grip on is the idea that we should be providing additional information for others to use, which I call for what it is, exploitation, not collaboration.</div>
<div>
<br>
But I don't believe that is what is behind the <b>acif</b> documents. I think they are under the impression they can foster a revolution in the quality of construction project management through the adoption of BIM. My suspicions were reinforced when I read the acknowledgements in the <b>acif</b> PTI Workbook document. There are no practitioners of BIM mentioned, and it is based on a 2001 publication by two academics: "Projects as Wealth Creators".<br>
<br>
I'm sure their ideas for better project management are fantastic and worth adopting, but they are trying to hijack BIM to push for unrelated issues. Using a new technology to justify a call for social change, otherwise known as social engineering.<br>
<br>
BIM is not going to change the way people behave. An owner who tries to squeeze everyone's prices and goad them into extra work is still going to do that. This is already happening with BIM in the attempts by owners to get the AEC team to provide FM data in a format of their choosing at no additional cost.<br>
<br>
And it simply won't work. No manager thinks what they do is poor practice. When they read something like BIM requires "<i>a well informed client who knows what they want</i>" they never think it applies to them. Statements like that achieve nothing.<br>
<br>
What should be explained is that anyone can utilize BIM, it is just that better managers will reap better rewards. That those who are open to adjusting their management style will benefit more than those that don't. To say to a manager you must throw out how you have done things in the past to use BIM is not only untrue, but counterproductive.<br>
<br>
<h3>
SUMMARY</h3>
To summarize my main criticisms:<br>
<h4>
PAS 1192-2</h4>
<b>EMPLOYER (Owner)</b><br>
-Assumes all is known about the project before it starts.<br>
-Expects employer to define how professionals conduct their business.<br>
-Expects employer to have expertise to check and approve professionals work.<br>
<br>
<b>PROCESS</b><br>
-Assumes design team all engaged at same time.<br>
-Assumes RFT from consortium - how else does a "pre-contract BEP" get done?<br>
-Assumes IPD type contracts (even though says it doesn't).<br>
-Assumes building has been designed (e.g. expectation of "volume" definitions)<br>
<br>
<b>DELIVERABLES</b><br>
-Insists Uniclass codes allocated to BIM objects even if not used by the project team.<br>
-Insists on COBie even when there may be no reason to use COBie<br>
<br>
<h4>
acif DOCUMENTS</h4>
-Doesn't explore how BIM can be used on existing contracts.<br>
-Mixes project specific objectives with industry wide objectives.<br>
-Many objectives are not actionable.<br>
-No decisive description of PTI protocols.<br>
-Inconsistent: advice is often contradicted by other parts of the document. <br>
<br>
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
You may, by now, have noticed this post is not a precis of the documents reviewed, but a critical review that carefully avoids spoilers (sorry, you are going to have to read them yourself).<br>
<br>
But having read them I believe both PAS 1192-2 and the <b>acif</b> documents are worthwhile additions to BIM literature.<br>
<br>
My criticisms are born of a frustration, that they are so close but miss the mark.<br>
My belief is that there is enough knowledge out there to create useful, practical BIM guides. The reasons why this rarely happens lie elsewhere. You can literally see the tussle between the BIM practitioners and BIM evangelists as you read the <b>acif </b>BIM & PTI documents.<br>
A good edit cleaning out the myths and rearranging the truths would do wonders for these documents. <br>
I believe all PAS 1192-2 needs some time in the real world getting practical experience to see what works and what doesn't. Some parts probably need to be watered down but the underlying logic and workflows are sound. <br>
<br>
So my advice is to make use of PAS 1192-2; for guidance on setting up a BIM procurement process, and the <b>acif</b> documents; for an overview of possible BIM procurement methods, with some gems of practical advice.<br>
<br>
Just don't ever mandate that PAS 1192-2 'shall' be followed, and approach the <b>acif</b> documents with a dose of skepticism, mine it for the gems and leave the tailings behind.</div>
<div>
<br></div>
</div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-67209755791675582622015-06-26T13:46:00.001+10:002015-06-26T13:49:04.320+10:00Classification - not so EasyI have written about adding classification numbers to Revit <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/real-bmp-best-modelling-practice.html" target="_blank">before</a>. Back then I thought it good practice to include them, even if you didn't have a specific need for them.<br />
<br />
That was before I did some digging and found it is not as simple as it sounds.<br />
<br />
Before you get bored and go back to looking at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HVWitAW-Qg" target="_blank">kittens on YouTube</a> or <a href="http://bimporn.tumblr.com/" target="_blank">BIMporn</a>, I appreciate you are probably not interested in classification systems. I certainly am not. So I'll put the practical information first, then at least you might know something useful before your eyes start glazing over.<br />
<br />
<h1>
How to Deal with Classification</h1>
<h3>
QUESTION THE NECESSITY FOR CLASSIFICATION</h3>
Classification codes <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/classification-not-so-easy.html#what">(see here for a description)</a> are promoted by some as a panacea for all BIM uses. The truth is they are mostly used for costing and specifications. They are not that useful for Facilities Management as a classification code might tell you a thing is a door, but it doesn't tell you where the door is.<br />
<br />
If you do estimating and will use classification codes (they are not the only method to identify components) then yes, they are necessary. If you use them for specification purposes then they are also necessary, although again, they are not the only, or even most common, way of managing specifications.<br />
<br />
If you don't do estimating and are requested to include classification codes in your models ask why.<br />
Are you doing it so the cost consultant or contractor doesn't have to? If so why are you doing it and not them? Who will pay <u>you</u> to do <u>their </u>work?<br />
<br />
If there is no specific reason, if it is explained as "necessary for BIM", or simply "good practice", put a price on it and see if it is still a requirement.<br />
Or pose a series of questions about the specifics of what it is they require (read to the bottom of this post for ammunition).<br />
As a last resort, if they still insist, be comforted in the fact that they have no idea what they will be receiving, will never use it, and will never know if you have done it properly or not (whatever "properly" means).<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
DEFINE YOUR SCOPE</h3>
If you can't get out of providing classification codes, and you have no clear direction on what is expected, you need to define what you will deliver.<br />
<br />
1. <u>Which classification system will be used.</u><br />
If you are in the USA or UK the answer will be obvious, possibly even mandated. In other countries (like Australia and many Asia-pacific countries) it may not be so obvious.<br />
<br />
If it is not clear use whichever one is easiest for you to access and use.<br />
<br />
2. <u>Which version will be used.</u><br />
Classification systems are pretty much constantly under review, and every now and again a new version is released.<br />
As there are legacy work practices and softwares that rely on old versions these old versions tend to still be in use well after a new version is released.<br />
Also draft versions exist for years and may be used on real projects as they are the only option available (as Autodesk did - see below). <br />
Keep in mind whoever you are providing classification codes to may not necessary require the latest version, or may require you to use a draft version.<br />
You could offer to provide the version most convenient for you to accomplish, which is not necessarily the latest (more on that below). However if whoever you are providing it to has not stated what they require you may have trouble arguing that an old version is 'fit for purpose'.<br />
<br />
Best practice is to ask which version is required. If that is not possible explicitly state which version you will provide.<br />
<br />
3. <u>Which tables will be used.</u><br />
Omniclass has 15 tables, Uniclass2015 has 11, you don't want to commit to providing relevant codes from every table to all objects.<br />
<br />
Offer to provide codes from one table: <i>Omniclass Table 21 - Elements</i>, or <i>Uniclass2015 Table Ss - Systems</i>.<br />
<br />
4. <u>Number of Codes per object.</u><br />
Classification tables describe different things that might apply to the same object. Also our BIM objects often contain multiple things that might attract a classification code (e.g. a door has many components - locks, handles, closers, hinges etc).<br />
<br />
Restrict your offer to a single code per object, that is, a single classification parameter per object.<br />
<br />
5. <u>Depth of Codes.</u><br />
Omniclass Table 23 is 7 levels deep, Uniclass2015 Table Ss is 4 levels deep. The deeper the level the more specific the information. The more specific the information the more objects required in your model. If you provide codes down to the level of door locks, you will need an object for each lock to hold the code (as opposed to a door parameter that describes the type of lock).<br />
<br />
Only offer to provide codes to the first level of the classification system.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now, all this sounds complicated, but can be captured in one sentence:<br />
<h4>
Omniclass:</h4>
We [normally/can/may/offer to/will] provide a single classification code to each appropriate object in our models conforming to <i>Omniformat 2012, Table 21 - Elements</i>, to a level of detail equal to <i>Level 2</i>.<br />
<h4>
Uniclass: </h4>
We [normally/can/may/offer to/will] provide a single classification code to each appropriate object in our models conforming to <i>Uniclass2015, table Ss - Systems</i>, to a level of detail equal to <i>Sub-group</i>.<br />
<br />
You can of course provide more than this, that is your commercial decision. My recommendations are a base line, a minimum that is reasonable. The point is to place a value on providing classification codes for others to make use of. Classification data entry takes time and effort and should be paid for.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WORK OUT HOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT</h3>
Before embarking on the task of assigning classifications, including pre-populating component families, establish the methods you will use. Poor choices and decisions can turn the task into a job that eats up hundreds of man hours.<br />
Don't assume anything. Test every step, and verify every result.<br />
In particular make sure you are aware of the abilities and limitations of the software you intend to use.<br />
I've only investigated Revit (which I will go into more detail below). Amongst other things I found that:<br />
<br />
The default <i>Omniclass Table 23 - Products</i> data in Revit is WRONG (kind of, see below).<br />
The default <i>Omniclass Table 21 - Elements</i> data in Revit is OUT OF DATE<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, use Revit. These issues can be resolved. But only if you know about them. Software vendors never take responsibility for the results their software produces (read any T & Cs), so don't trust files provided by vendors containing data you are responsible for. Check they are correct.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h1>
The Boring Details</h1>
If you really don't care about classification systems you can stop reading now. Perhaps come back when your client or boss requires you to become a data entry operator plugging in classification codes.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="what">WHAT ARE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS?</a>
</h3>
By classification systems I mean <a href="http://www.omniclass.org/" target="_blank">Omniclass</a> from the USA, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniclass" target="_blank">Uniclass</a> from the UK. There are other non-english classification systems which I am not familiar with, nor ever hope to be. There are also various standards, but I'm not going to go there either.<br />
Classification systems are hierarchical numbering systems (although some contain letters) that attempt to provide a unique number for everything that needs to be described in the building process.<br />
<br />
An example from Omniclass Table 21 - Elements:<br />
21-03 10 30 Interior Doors<br />
21-03 10 30 10 Interior Swinging Doors<br />
21-03 10 30 20 Interior Entrance Doors<br />
21-03 10 30 30 Interior Sliding Doors<br />
<br />
An example from Uniclass2015 Table Ss - Systems:<br />
Ss 25 30 Door and window systems<br />
Ss 25 30 20 Door, shutter and hatch systems<br />
Ss 25 30 20 16 Collapsible gate and grille doorset systems<br />
Ss 25 30 20 25 Doorset systems<br />
Ss 25 30 20 30 Frame and door leaf systems<br />
Ss 25 30 20 32 Frameless glass door systems<br />
<br />
<br />
Both systems are made up of a number of tables. Uniclass has 15, although Uniclass2015 has 11 (maybe 10 now - see below). I counted 15 in Omniclass but the last one is numbered 49. I don't know if this is because there are yet to be release tables, existing tables have been deleted or the numbers are just not sequential.<br />
Some tables come from pre-existing classification systems, Omniclass Table 21 from Uniformat, Omniclass Table 22 from <a href="http://www.csinet.org/masterformat" target="_blank">MasterFormat</a>.<br />
<br />
Oh, and there are two Uniformats, plain old <a href="http://www.csinet.org/uniformat" target="_blank">Uniformat</a> and <a href="http://www.uniformat.com/" target="_blank">Uniformat II</a>.<br />
And there is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniclass" target="_blank">Uniclass</a>, <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/PracticeManagement/articles/anIntroductionToUniclass2.asp" target="_blank">Uniclass2</a> and <a href="https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification" target="_blank">Uniclass2015</a>. Uniclass is the original developed before BIM, Uniclass2 was going to be the new version with better integration between tables. That partially complete system has now been re-branded as Uniformat2015 by the <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/" target="_blank">UK NBS</a> who are working on it as part of their <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/corporate/nbsnews/14-10_NBS-awarded-1m-contract-to-complete-level-2-bim-for-hm-government.asp" target="_blank">government contract</a> to create a "BIM Toolkit".<br />
<br />
Which classification system is best? Who knows (or cares). If an article from the UK NBS: <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/PracticeManagement/articles/OmniClassCritique.asp" target="_blank">Omniclass: a critique</a> is anything to go by <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/PracticeManagement/articles/anIntroductionToUniclass2.asp" target="_blank">Uniclass2</a> is better structured for BIM than Omniclass.<br />
Except Uniclass2015 (remember, Uniclass2 is now called Uniclass2015) is incomplete, only four tables are available (I hesitate to say 'published', they are still draft), so may or may not be usable, depending whether the bit you need is sufficiently complete to be useful.<br />
<br />
It seems that most tables grew from cost estimating requirements, with the exception of the Work Result tables which seem to come from specifications systems. <i>Omniclass Table 22</i> is based on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MasterFormat" target="_blank">MasterFormat</a>, and <i>Uniclass Table J</i> (<i>Table WR</i> in Uniclass2) is based on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Arrangement_of_Work_Sections" target="_blank">CAWS</a> (Common Arrangement of Work Sections for building works) classification.<br />
<br />
Except that Uniclass2015 Table WR has <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/PracticeManagement/articles/uniclass2-an-update.asp" target="_blank">now been withdrawn</a>. Apparently is is redundant as "<i>it has become clear that this table is confusing (why have objects got two near-identical codes?), redundant (objects only need one code) and unnecessarily restrictive on the other tables (the number of levels was limited in every case).</i>"<br />
<br />
I suppose they know what they are doing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHO USES CLASSIFICATION CODES?</h3>
As mentioned above historically classification codes have been used for cost estimating and specification writing.<br />
<br />
Sometimes they are used for classifying product libraries, or naming systems in CAD and BIM software. Attempts at the latter are rarely successful. Not many people know that 21-03 10 30 means interior door, but every knows what "Door-Interior" means. I have seen the sad remnants of misguided attempts to introduce naming based on opaque classification codes in a number of architectural offices.<br />
<br />
So it is the cost estimators who mainly use classification codes, working for the owner, the contractor; or as a consultant to owners, design professionals, or contractors.<br />
Classification codes may possibly be used for specifications but they are the providence of design professionals, there is no need to pass that information on to others within a BIM model.<br />
<br />
Classification codes are hardly information that is required by all participants within the AECO work chain.<br />
<br />
<h3>
ARE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS NECESSARY FOR BIM?</h3>
When computers started to be used it was found classification codes and their tables were not as logical as everyone assumed, hence all this reworking and new versions.<br />
But there seems to have been a knee jerk reaction that classification systems are necessary, even critical, for BIM to work.<br />
<br />
I don't see it. BIM software brings its own structuring of data that can be utilized for costing and specifications. I don't see that it is absolutely necessary to add another layer of information that duplicates existing data.<br />
Particularly when existing classification systems do not provide enough coverage. The Uniformat codes produced for Autodesk (see below) have an extra 3 levels of numbers. Presumably because Uniformat did not have enough codes to cover all the things that Revit can model.<br />
<br />
And where does IFC fit into all this?<br />
IFC is a 'schema', it not only identifies objects but also locates them in relation to other objects. So IFC not only knows something is a door, it knows which wall it is in, which rooms are around it, which lock it has.<br />
Which raises the question of why have IFC <u>and</u> classification? Or why can't classification codes be built into IFC? Match IFC attributes to classification codes within IFC software so users don't have to manually enter them.<br />
<br />
Of course it is not that simple, or more precisely, practical.<br />
Whilst Uniclass2015 has a whole lot of codes for door hardware, there are no definitions for door hardware in IFC. Both are incomplete, but in different ways.<br />
And the logical structure is different. Classification system grew from a system designed for humans to use, IFC is for software to use. Is the effort to make them align worth it, will it produce a practical result? Something that will actually achieve useful outcomes in the real world?<br />
<br />
I'm not advocating that classification systems be abandoned altogether. It is just that they are 'nice to have' rather than a necessity. Don't be fooled into thinking they are critical part of BIM.<br />
<br />
<h3>
ADDING CLASSIFICATION CODES</h3>
Apparently it is really simple. You just add the appropriate classification code to parameters attached to objects in your BIM model.<br />
To put this in perspective, the appropriate code from a choice of 6,905 codes in <i>Omniclass Table 23</i>; a choice of 6,470 in <i>Uniclass2015 Table Pr</i>. Added to parameters in each of the thousands of objects in a typical BIM model.<br />
<br />
But, I hear you say, we use BIM, the software will do it for us. Yes and no.<br />
<br />
I'll restrict my discussion to Revit, because that is what I use. And because I couldn't be bothered re-spending the time I wasted discovering how things don't work in Revit on other softwares.<br />
<br />
Revit has two built in places for classification values, and a third that can be re-purposed to do it. The fourth way is to manually create custom parameters.<br />
<br />
Each family file (components like doors, furniture, etc) has a file based parameter called <i>Omniclass Number</i>. This is for <i>Omniclass Table 23 - Products</i>. When this parameter is selected Revit provides a dialogue box where you can select the appropriate code from a drop down list that can be sorted by Revit category. So if you are in a Door family only codes appropriate to Doors are offered for selection. Revit also fills in the <i>Omniclass Title</i> parameter automatically. Nice.<br />
<br />
All types of objects also have a parameter called <i>Assembly Code</i>. This is not file based so categories that don't exist as separate files, like walls, floors, ceilings, roofs have this parameter. It works the same way as the Omniclass parameters, the user is offered a selection from <i>Omniclass Table 21 - Elements</i> that only applies to the category of the object. Revit automatically fills in the <i>Assembly Description</i> parameter.<br />
<br />
The third way is to use the <i>Keynote</i> parameter. All types of objects have this parameter. When Keynote is selected a user defined tab delimited text file is read that lists the code opposite its title. The user selects from the list. Some organisations have created Keynote files for use with their classification systems. In Australia NatSpec has done so for their specification codes (<a href="http://bim.natspec.org/index.php/tools/keynoting-framework#revit" target="_blank">get it here</a>). Note that the one that comes with out of the box Revit in Australia is not the latest version.<br />
<br />
<br />
The <i>Omniclass Number</i> and <i>Assembly Code</i> values also come from tab delimited text files (although formatted differently).<br />
<i>Omniclass Number</i> values are in <b>OmniClassTaxonomy.txt</b>. This file is located in bowels of windows on each users local computer at %APPDATA%\Autodesk\Revit\<<i>product name and release</i>>.<br />
<br />
<i>Assembly Code</i> values are in a file called <b>UniformatClassifications.txt</b>. A copy can also be found in the bowels of windows, but you can change the path to this file, and even path to a different file.<br />
The command to do this can be found under the <i>Manage</i> tab > <i>Additional Settings</i> > <i>Assembly Code</i>. In this command there are a number of ways the definition file can be pathed, one of which is relative the Library set in Options. It seems AutoDesk assume <i>Assembly Code</i> values may be associated with particular component libraries.<br />
<br />
The path and file to the <i>Assembly Code </i>definition file is set in each file. So individual projects, and individual family (component) files, can be linked to different Assembly Code definitions.<br />
<br />
The automatic assigning of <i>Assembly Description</i> (and <i>Omniclass Title) </i>only happens if the correct files are associated with the file you are in.<br />
<br />
Revit also provides a keynote file based on <i>Omniclass Table 22 - Work Results</i> (aka <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MasterFormat" target="_blank">Masterformat</a>).<br />
<br />
Because Revit uses separate text files it is possible to replace those files with different ones; a different classification version, or completely different classification system. As long as the files are formatted correctly. Which is sort of great.<br />
Except to replace <b>OmniClassTaxonomy.txt </b>you need to replace it for every user on every individual computer. And it will then apply to ALL projects and family files used by that user on that computer. It is an office wide change, not an individual project change. And you will need to do it every time there is a new version of Revit. You can't change the filename either, it has to be OmniClassTaxonomy.txt, which makes it hard to identify what the file contains.<br />
<br />
<b>UniformatClassifications.txt</b> is a little easier. As described above you can change the path and filename via a menu command. Although it is a bit tedious if you want to associate a different definition file to family (component) files, as you have to open, make the change, and then save every individual family file.<br />
<br />
<h3>
ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION FILES</h3>
Why would you need to change the files? Obviously if you need to use Uniclass (more on that below), but also if you intend to use Omniclass.<br />
<br />
<h4>
OMNICLASS</h4>
As mentioned above the default files that come with out of the box Revit are not correct.<br />
<br />
The default <b>OmniClassTaxonomy.txt</b> is based on a 2006 draft version of <i>Omniclass Table 23 - Products</i>. There are valid historical reasons for this, Autodesk are not being belligerent. They introduced Omniclass for families files so they could use it to classify them in their web based component library AutoDesk Seek. It was never their intention to support Omniclass for general users.<br />
<br />
A newer version based on Omniclass 2012 is available from Autodesk at <a href="http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2015/ENU/Revit-Troubleshooting/files/GUID-BA0B2713-ADA0-4E51-A7CD-85D85511F3ED-htm.html" target="_blank">Update OmniClass Taxonomy File</a>. However the new file doesn't associate Omniclass values with Revit categories. I'm not sure why, there is no technical reason it couldn't. I'm also not sure why Revit 2016 still ships with the draft version of Omniclass.<br />
<br />
If you use the <i>Omniclass Number</i> parameter it is important you make a decision, because Omniclass values for the 2006 draft are DIFFERENT from Omniclass 2012.<br />
<br />
Default Omniclass -Interior Doors: 23.30.10.00<br />
Omniclass 2012 -Interior Doors: 23.15.11.15<br />
<br />
<br />
The default <b>UniformatClassifications.txt</b> file is a modified version of <a href="http://www.uniformat.com/index.php/classification-of-building-elements" target="_blank">Uniformat II</a>. It was created for Autodesk by <a href="https://www.rsmeansonline.com/" target="_blank">RSMeans</a>, a USA costing data provider. They modified it by adding up to an extra 3 levels for a maximum depth of 7 levels, whereas Uniformat has a maximum of 4 levels.<br />
<br />
Autodesk now also provide with out of the box Revit the <b>UniformatClassifications_2010.txt</b> file. This is an updated version of <a href="http://csc-dcc.ca/News/UniFormat+2010/" target="_blank">Uniformat.</a><br />
Again, there are differences in the numbering between the two versions:<br />
<br />
UniformatClassification.txt - Interior Doors: C1020<br />
UniformatClassification_2010.txt - Interior Doors: C1030<br />
<br />
You could also make your own OmniClassTaxonomy.txt or <i>Assembly Number</i> definition file from publicly available <a href="http://www.omniclass.org/tables.asp" target="_blank">excel files of Omniclass tables</a>. Although you will have to reverse engineer the file structure from Revit's files.<br />
<h4>
UNICLASS</h4>
I couldn't find any Uniclass equivalents of OmniClassTaxonomy.txt or UniformatClassifications.txt. I did find some people who have created their own, so it is possible, although you will have to reverse engineer the file structure.<br />
<br />
Some Uniclass 2015 tables are available as excel files from the <a href="https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification" target="_blank">NBS BIM Toolkit site</a> (scroll to the bottom of the article).<br />
<br />
But there is a deeper problem. Uniclass 2015 is not complete, it is still being developed. Admittedly the tables you are most likely to use, <i>Ss - Systems</i> and <i>Pr - Products</i> are more developed than some other tables. But no-one will guarantee they won't change. In fact the downloadable excel files have a suffix of 'latest'. Doesn't exactly instil confidence. I wonder if they don't finish this year they will still call it Uniclass2015.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
Classification systems are probably useful, to certain people in certain circumstances. But they are not a requirement for BIM to work.<br />
<br />
Although my comments about the lack of completeness may have come across as captious, my view is that it is always worthwhile making improvements. The process is disruptive but if we don't constantly strive to improve we will be stuck with impractical systems. Imagine having to use the Roman numbering system! I encourage those working on updating classification systems to continue their good work.<br />
<br />
But there appears to be quite a way to go. Not only do we need the the classification systems to be BIM friendly, complete and stable, they need to be available in a consistent and durable way so that software houses can access them for integration into their softwares.<br />
<br />
To be honest, I don't see how anyone can take them seriously until this happens. The journey I had to take just to identify which codes I should apply to our in-house component library has been ridiculous. Time in my life I'll never get back.<br />
<br />
<br />
If you have managed to get down to here, well done. You now know a bit more about classification systems. Not everything mind you, there are even more boring things you could be abreast of.<br />
And of course everything I have explained may not be 100% correct. If you see anything wrong, or misinformed, please comment. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, but don't expect me to care.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-60073743437410251972015-05-29T08:25:00.000+10:002016-05-23T12:48:21.358+10:00NBS BIM Object Standard - Where is the Impact Statement?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
When the NBS BIM Object Standard first came out I eagerly grabbed it to see if it contained any useful insights, anything that might help me structure the way I do my work.<br />
Sadly I was disappointed. Not only did I found nothing I could immediately apply, I barely understood it.<br />
But for me it didn't matter. I don't work in the UK, I could afford to ignore it.<br />
<br />
A few months later I noticed a post in the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4103410/4103410-5995953364968501248" target="_blank">NBS National BIM Library LinkedIn</a> group asking for comment. So I thought I would revisit the NBS BIM Object Standard, try a bit harder to follow it, and work out why I was unimpressed.<br />
After posting my comments on the LinkedIn group someone from the NBS posted a prompt reply. That was over a month ago. Since then no more comments from anyone else, which is disappointing. Seems no one cares.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT IS THE NBS BIM OBJECT STANDARD?</h3>
But first, for those not in the UK, some background information.<br />
<a href="http://www.thenbs.com/" target="_blank">NBS</a>, the National Building Specification, is a commercial firm owned by the <a href="http://www.architecture.com/" target="_blank">RIBA</a>, the Royal Institute of British Architects. They provide specification products and other services - "information solutions to construction industry professionals." BIM services is a good fit for their business, so they are developing a range of BIM 'products'. As we all know establishing standards is necessary for any BIM system, the NBS BIM Object Standard is one of those standards. They have other BIM documents, for example I commented on their <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/the-rudeness-of-uk-nbs-object-parameters.html" target="_blank">NBS Shared Parameters in another post</a>.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/nbs-bim-object-standard" target="_blank">NBS National BIM Object Standard</a> is available for free on-line. There is an on-line version and a downloadable PDF. The on-line version has guidelines built in (click on a clause). The web site is very well designed and easy to use.<br />
<br />
In 2014 they won a <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/corporate/nbsnews/14-10_NBS-awarded-1m-contract-to-complete-level-2-bim-for-hm-government.asp" target="_blank">UK government contract</a> to "take forward development of the Digital Toolkit for Building Information Modelling (BIM)". So any standards they develop are likely to become UK government endorsed, and quite likely government mandated. At the very least they are likely to be referenced in owner BIM requirements in the UK.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/nbs-bim-object-standard" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFIkrC8-agAvd_UIM_Fr8F51KYpfISD6p5ieFzcLhqOuDoG0y1CDq7Vt-hMDlsIJXQDvc65hHMY946IfdY_LTjYRA7FE1qcmKR9fotIafvsq8Yf91FtT1wiKZVxpZa8K7nNTvlDeHCwAsK/s1600/NBSstandard01.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
MY APOLOGY TO THE NBS</h3>
This post is critical of the NBS BIM Object Standard, and I apologize in advance. The standard is not a complete dud, there are many good things in it. A BIM Object Standard is necessary. Kudos to the UK government for funding it, and the NBS is an appropriate organisation to develop it. Much of BIM is new and untested, the NBS are, to an extent, finding their way, like the rest of us. I don't necessarily advocate abandonment of the standard or the NBS as author.<br />
<br />
I'm more disappointed than anything else. There are real efforts being made elsewhere, standards that are much more comprehensive and, well, useful. <a href="http://www.anzrs.org/" target="_blank">ANZRS</a>, Australian and New Zealand Revit Standards, and <a href="http://www.bimmepaus.com.au/" target="_blank">BIM-MEP [AUS]</a> come to mind. But these efforts are Revit specific and don't try and use IFC or other global standards.<br />
<br />
As I say above, I don't work in the UK, as many of you probably don't either. We won't be directly affected by the NBS BIM Object Standard. I'm using it as a specific example of some of the problems I see in many BIM standards. I hope my criticisms are taken in that light, not as an attack on the NBS, but as a comment on all BIM standards, and a cautionary tale for future BIM standards.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT IS ITS STATUS?</h3>
It is not entirely clear to me what the status of the NBS BIM Object Standard is. Is it the NBS in-house standard for creating objects for their library, or is it supposed to be a national (UK) standard for all creators of BIM objects?<br />
No where does it state that it is a national standard, but the language and structure seem to assume that it is. The fact that the names of properties defined in the standard are not identified (e.g. by prefixing with <i>COBie_</i> or <i>IFC_</i>) suggests they expect there will be no competing standards. Or perhaps they assume the thousands of people involved in the AECO industry will just know that '<i>Grade</i>' is a COBie property.<br />
The exception are properties specifically for the NBS proprietary specification service (e.g. <i>NBSReference</i>). At least they recognize they have competitors in the specification market, but it seems they don't expect to have any in the BIM market.<br />
<br />
The scope of this standard is so narrow I can't see how it could seriously be taken as anything other than an in-house document. It should have been called the <b>NBS BIM Object Library Standard</b> to avoid confusion.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW</h3>
Even though I work in the BIM sphere, and have read way too many BIM reports, guides and standards, I found the NBS BIM Object Standard a difficult document to understand.<br />
<br />
A large chunk of requirements seem to be hidden within BS 8541. I don't know if reading BS 8541 in conjunction with the NBS BIM Object Standard would make it more understandable or not because I don't have a lazy few hundred pounds sterling. But really, no document should rely on another to make it comprehensible.<br />
<br />
There is an assumption IFC, and IFC terminology, is understood by readers. IFC is for computer nerds, not construction or FM professionals. If you actually want to engage them it needs to be explained in terms used in the AECO industry.<br />
Does anyone know what this means?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The BIM object may include <i>Pset BuildingElementProxyCommon</i> if no IFC common property set (<i>Pset xxxxCommon</i>) exists for that object in IFC 2x3. Where <i>PsetBuildingElementProxyCommon</i> is used, the BIM object shall include a ‘<i>Reference</i>’ property completed with an alphanumeric value acting as an identifier for the specific object type."</blockquote>
Some parts are particularly unclear. Clause 2.2 talks about "The BIM object property". Is it the value of the property which identifies the object (if so what is the property name?), or is it generic - applies to all property values?<br />
<br />
Each property is described, but many are not clear on what they are to be used for. Things like <i>Features</i>, <i>Grade</i>, <i>Constituents</i>. When is something a <i>Feature</i> instead of a <i>Constituent</i>? Generally examples would be helpful. I have trouble imagining how most of how the standard could apply to what I do (as an Architect).<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
UNCLEAR STRUCTURE</h3>
Properties included seem to privilege FM. For example I didn't see anything there that would help me do a door schedule.<br />
The response from the NBS was that COBie is mandated by UK BIM so must be included (presumably to comply with NBS's government contract).<br />
<br />
That's fine, but if you are trying to develop a standard shouldn't it cover all use cases?<br />
Their response to that was that the NBS standard is "not a static document". Again, not an unreasonable intent, although perhaps challenging to the usual concept of a 'standard'.<br />
<br />
But there is no recognition of this in the structure of the document. I get that it is not possible to instantly produce all information, but I would expect a standard to have a structure that reflects long term goals, that won't require constant restructuring to include new information.<br />
<br />
This issue is partly the reason I find it so difficult to follow. Under section 2: Information Requirements, there are heading for IFC, COBie and NBS_General. So these are presumably requirements, but there is no definition or explanation around them.<br />
From what I can gather COBie is data for operations (i.e. FM), NBS_General are for specification co-ordination. Perhaps IFC is for all other uses? I don't know. It is not clear.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
REPEATED AND UNCLEAR INFORMATION</h3>
I thought the point of standardizing data was to avoid unnecessary duplication.<br />
Yet there are a number of parameters that appear to be for the same information.<br />
Clause 2.6.1.16-18 defines '<i>NominalLength</i>', '<i>NominalWidth</i>' and '<i>NominalHeight</i>'. Clause 2.6.1.21 defines '<i>Size</i>'. Aren't they describing the same thing?<br />
<br />
As an aside it is disappointing '<i>NominalLength</i>' and '<i>NominalWidth</i>' are not more clearly defined. <i>NominalLength</i> is defined as "primary horizontal dimension", <i>NominalWidth</i> is "secondary horizontal dimension", which leaves it to users to interpret which is "primary" and which is "secondary".<br />
More definitive would be to define '<i>NominalLength</i>' as left to right horizontal dimension, and '<i>NominalWidth</i>' as front to back horizontal dimension, something I've <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/which-direction-is-depth.html" target="_blank">written about previously</a>.<br />
<br />
There are parameters that contain more than one piece of information (e.g. <i>Category -</i> number, colon then name), yet other single parameters that would only apply to a limited range of objects and would be best contained in one general description parameter, things like '<i>Grade</i>', '<i>Constituents</i>' and '<i>Features</i>'.<br />
<br />
To be fair these problems are due to inadequacies in COBie, another issue I have <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/to-cobie-or-not-to-cobie.html" target="_blank">previously written about</a>. But is it sensible to propagate poor practices without question?<br />
<br />
Use of Classification is confusing. There are two main english language classification systems, <i>Uniclass</i> from the UK, and <i>Omniclass</i> from the USA.<br />
In the NBS BIM Object Standard there are two places to put classification; COBie, clause 2.6.1.2 has '<i>Category</i>', and NBS_General, clause 2.7.8 has '<i>Uniclass2</i>'.<br />
<br />
In addition to the two classification parameters there is a third, <i>NBSReference</i>, which is for an NBS Clause Reference. (as well as <i>NBSDescription</i> which is for an NBS clause title, presumably the text that accompanies a clause reference, so I don't know why you need both).<br />
<br />
The reason behind all this, according to the NBS, is so you "can have more than one classification associated with a product (BS ISO 15686-4)".<br />
Which on the face of it seems prudent. But why would you want to have more than one classification system associated with a product? How does that work?<br />
Are we supposed to completed both parameters with the same value, or can we leave on blank?<br />
Do we put Omniclass in one and UniClass2 in the other for all components?<br />
Or have a mixture so some components have Omniclass, others Uniclass?<br />
<br />
And why is there a separate parameter for specification? Isn't the whole point of a unified classification system that the same classification number is used for all purposes - specifications, costing, scheduling, asset management?<br />
<br />
But to me the silliest parameter is <i>BIMObjectName</i>, which is the same as the actual name of the component. Why? The object has a name so why repeat it as a parameter? It just adds another layer of work and potential error in the data.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
INEFFICIENT NAMING CONVENTION</h3>
In section 5: <i>Metadata Requirements</i> all naming follows the same format:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>role / source / type /subtype / differentiator</b></blockquote>
Where 'role' means BIM object author and 'source' means product manufacturer.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how you would apply this to components made of multiple products by multiple manufacturers. Objects that have layers of materials like walls, roofs, ceilings and sometimes floors.<br />
<br />
The naming schema does follow the "major to less minor" structure that lists similar things together, which is the best strategy.<br />
Except this structure lists by component author, then product manufacturer. Neither of these bits of information are important to the vast majority of people who will be using BIM objects.<br />
<br />
Who cares who the author is when you are searching a list to find a door, or a pump, or a sprinkler? It doesn't matter if is was NBS, or Arcat, or BIMobject, or BIMcomponent.<br />
Next most useless information is manufacturer. The actual product, and hence manufacturer, is not known for many components until a contractor is appointed. Architect and engineers do design intent BIM, our work is largely finished by the time the manufacturer is known.<br />
<br />
For those of us who have to use standards (as opposed to those who just create them) this introduces an enormous inefficiency when trying to select components by their name. We are confronted with lists sorted by who made them, then sorted by manufacturer. What we need are components listed by what they are, not who made them.<br />
<br />
To make it worse clause 5.2.3 says "The manufacturer name shall not be abbreviated." So not only are our components sorted in a manner useless to us, we can't read the information we need as it is hidden when the name extends beyond the width of our dialog boxes. For example names like <i>Australian Sustainable Hardwoods</i> (30 characters), <i>BAC Advanced Composites Technologies</i> (33 characters).<br />
<br />
Complying names in Revit:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDNT8U2L1xH71xz-EfXUcSwLHYEwmrf3O1r20qg95lYkoUa8jDVYkqvRmibjIKRsBNapdTorXpxrzb3SaOWgse8XNQiSBVi6rhOQ73sRoANk1id0DqTb4yc-h1eb_zpBlvP-Xc33uuXkas/s1600/NBSinRevit01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDNT8U2L1xH71xz-EfXUcSwLHYEwmrf3O1r20qg95lYkoUa8jDVYkqvRmibjIKRsBNapdTorXpxrzb3SaOWgse8XNQiSBVi6rhOQ73sRoANk1id0DqTb4yc-h1eb_zpBlvP-Xc33uuXkas/s1600/NBSinRevit01.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
in Windows:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPaX1X7f9p-Fx7kpT50E1wSksN2SmT6fQIDNvipgBOeVgUu9AjTM810W4PjAh0gLSMQq44cPLAP_35Thi4o7tvGEWAMD8fzj4zlPN1Lm5X0_JczXMATxTltivx31pEKFeF9ofF6TZF5HT0/s1600/NBSinRevit02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPaX1X7f9p-Fx7kpT50E1wSksN2SmT6fQIDNvipgBOeVgUu9AjTM810W4PjAh0gLSMQq44cPLAP_35Thi4o7tvGEWAMD8fzj4zlPN1Lm5X0_JczXMATxTltivx31pEKFeF9ofF6TZF5HT0/s1600/NBSinRevit02.png" /></a></div>
<div>
<br />
But interestingly in the <a href="http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/" target="_blank">NBS National BIM Library</a> components use what sort of thing they are straight after author. Did the NBS find their own standard unworkable?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7epNHcaHsHFlGJv28-7U03mkhNjSzaCL-VUx-aLPIvq0vpCB5d283RHr1ZMaAYuHpklPNOk5lsJaBrz97Snth528Cpz2sWFzd24vZwNZ4C8Njf-IvnfT5LdM88C2UMV8CSUtjG49kdltR/s1600/NBSinRevit03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7epNHcaHsHFlGJv28-7U03mkhNjSzaCL-VUx-aLPIvq0vpCB5d283RHr1ZMaAYuHpklPNOk5lsJaBrz97Snth528Cpz2sWFzd24vZwNZ4C8Njf-IvnfT5LdM88C2UMV8CSUtjG49kdltR/s1600/NBSinRevit03.png" /></a></div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
And what happens when a product is selected, when it goes from being a generic component to a specific one? Currently we just change, or more likely add, the relevant information. Replacing our well structured components with manufacturer components is not a realistic option. That would possibly cause them to relocate themselves in our model, and almost certainly destroy our existing schedules.<br />
So realistically the standard requires us rename the component. Not only do we complete the manufacturer and model information we have to rename the component and change the value of the NBS <i>BIMObjectName</i> parameter. It may not sound like much but it effectively doubles our work.<br />
Oh, and COBie also has a <i>Name</i> parameter for the component's name, but apparently it is not, or doesn't have to be, the name within the BIM platform. So the component has two names?<br />
<br />
As an aside names of things in a BIM system should be treated as the HUID for the object - Human Understandable ID. Just like computers need a GUID to identify objects, those of us that create BIM need a human understandable way to identify objects. A name that suits our working practices so we can be efficient. Names should NEVER be used as a data field as they are unreliable and invariably repeat data already embedded in proper data fields.<br />
<br />
And the justification for all this?<br />
"The NBS BIM Object standard draws upon BS 1192 and BS8541 for naming conventions. This document states that ‘Source’ e.g. Library author/ Manufacturer is the first field within the naming convention."<br />
<br />
Why draw on something that is inappropriate?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
UNREALISTIC</h3>
We get this all too often in standards, rules and requirements that are impossible or difficult and time consuming to comply with.<br />
<br />
Clause 2.3.5 states "The BIM object shall map hard coded properties that do not conform to naming conventions in section 5 ‘Metadata Requirements’ to a correctly spelt property based upon the order of selection in clause 2.3.3, e.g. ‘Fire Rating’ (hard coded) should be mapped to the IFC property ‘FireRating’."<br />
<br />
You can't do that in Revit. You can't map a text parameter to another text parameter. Now, admittedly you should be able to, Autodesk should hang their head in shame. But the reality is the majority of people authoring BIM use Revit, so none of us can comply.<br />
<br />
Which brings up another issue. Why are we being made to put things into our BIM model, the one we rely on to produce the work we are contracted to do and are responsible for? Why are we being made to wade through a sea of parameters that we don't use?<br />
And it is so unnecessary. Our parameters can be mapped to what others want on export. They don't HAVE to exist as separate parameters in our models. All we should be required to do is ensure we have the necessary parameters to map to IFC and/or COBie properties for export. Particularly since one of our parameters is likely to populate multiple IFC / COBie properties, as described above.<br />
<br />
This comes under the 'are they serious' department.<br />
There is an overarching requirement to fill values not applicable or not known with '<b>n/a</b>', including, bizarrely, <i>revision</i>.<br />
<br />
I can understand why you might put <b>n/a</b> as a value for parameters that never will be applicable to a particular object (which makes you wonder why they are there in the first place), but why do it if the value is simply not know?<br />
And how do you, or how does compliance checking software, tell whether it is not applicable or not know - not available?<br />
<br />
But what irks me the most is the amount pointless effort that will be required to fulfil this requirement. Generally software will leave a value blank if it is not filled in. What the NBS BIM Object Standard is demanding is that someone take the time to go through and change all these blank values to <b>n/a</b>. Across tens of parameters in an object, hundreds of objects in a project, thousands of different firms, and projects within those firms. Millions of man hours per year across the industry. And why?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"During consultation, feedback advised us that having blank COBie fields resulted in failed COBie compliance tests. BS1192-4 suggests unknown values are entered as ‘n/a’."</blockquote>
So rather than the few hours it would take to make some COBie compliance software cope with null values, the whole AEC industry is expected to waste millions of man hours.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3DVoPnb4-3yLUBM10fdRWsHyKFnogKTDhwmlgTiPAFTdy9tUWCvvrgBngRNs0MC8x5ycevTjBT5wlPQPS9-8C4TzOvZi5hEMRr2y6T4pIKedwM7D3l200TfRKTqnlIFM9HeJChtFXbl4y/s1600/NBSinRevit04.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3DVoPnb4-3yLUBM10fdRWsHyKFnogKTDhwmlgTiPAFTdy9tUWCvvrgBngRNs0MC8x5ycevTjBT5wlPQPS9-8C4TzOvZi5hEMRr2y6T4pIKedwM7D3l200TfRKTqnlIFM9HeJChtFXbl4y/s1600/NBSinRevit04.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS</h3>
A summary.<br />
<h4>
POORLY STRUCTURED</h4>
For an industry document I find the NBS BIM Object Standard poorly structured and not clearly written. It reads like an internal document between Standard writing wonks. What appears to be explanatory clauses are really just lists that could have been formatted in tables.<br />
Unfortunately the NBS BIM Object Standard is not the only BIM document to attract this criticism.<br />
<br />
<h4>
LIMITED SCOPE</h4>
The NBS BIM Object Standard only covers a very small part of BIM processes. It tries to cover FM by including some COBie parameters, and specification coordination through the NBS parameters. Mind you, very limited specification coordination as NBS is only one of many available systems, and of no use to those who do in-house specifications.<br />
<br />
And you do wonder if it is appropriate for COBie data to be in objects contained in what is design software. Software like Revit and ArchiCAD are fundamentally unsuitable for FM. There is no intrinsic reason for FM data to be embedded in these softwares, as it is of no use to anyone making use of the BIM benefits they bestow. There are other junctures, and other softwares, in the construction process where inputting of FM data would be much more efficient.<br />
<br />
<h4>
DOGMATIC ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER STANDARDS</h4>
A few of the shortcomings of the NBS BIM Object Standard stem from the unquestioned following of other standards. I suppose the argument is that the purpose of the NBS BIM Object Standard is to assist in compliance with other standards. But are those standards appropriate?<br />
Is it really necessary to follow another standard's internal requirements, requirements developed for purposes different from the needs of a BIM Object Standard?<br />
The real question here is should a standard be the same as other standards or should the aim be to make it compatible with other standards. To be something useful rather than recycle things that exist elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<h4>
NO IMPACT STATEMENT</h4>
But perhaps the most disappoint aspect of this, and most, if not all, other standards for BIM, is the lack of any thought to industry impact. I'm not talking about supply chain impact, but additional work that will be required across the industry to comply with a standard.<br />
<br />
The argument that the overall gain in efficiency of a common standard will surpass any additional individual effort doesn't hold water.<br />
<br />
Firstly any irrelevant effort should be eliminated as a matter of course.<br />
<br />
Secondly, how do you know what the overall gain will be if you don't deduct new inefficiencies?<br />
<br />
And thirdly, the burden of additional effort is not equally shared. Only some parties are weighed down with additional work and inefficient practices, whilst other benefit with no or little effort. This may not be completely avoidable, but where it does occur there should be robust assessment of costs and benefits to ensure it is a worthwhile sacrifice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
Standards are boring and often difficult to understand. But make no mistake, once published they will affect what you do.<br />
<br />
The NBS BIM Object Standard may in reality only be an in-house document for their library, but they are promoting it as a national standard. And as we know standards, even ones pretending to be national, are invariably included in contracts by people who have no understanding of what they are.<br />
We are already seeing this with the inclusion of COBie in contracts with no definition of what is to be included in the COBie deliverable. Thousands of man hours wasted on providing something those requesting it have no capacity or intention of using.<br />
<br />
<br />
What can be done?<br />
Don't take it lying down. If your boss makes you do something to comply with a standard that takes extra time make it known, if a client demands compliance with standards question the need, and charge if it takes additional effort, and if your BIM consultant suggests you should include a standard in contracts demand a proper cost benefit analysis, don't accept 'you might need it' or it is 'what everyone else is doing', and don't believe them if they say 'it shouldn't cost extra'.<br />
<br />
And when comment is sought on new standards take the opportunity to have your say. Or pester your industry association to comment, they are, after all, supposedly there to protect the interests of their members.<br />
<br />
If you would like to comment directly to the NBS email them at <a href="mailto:info@thenbs.com" target="_blank">info@thenbs.com</a>, or join the discussion on their LinkedIn page at <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/National-BIM-Library-4103410/about" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/groups/National-BIM-Library-4103410/about</a><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-68762493500441630052015-04-17T08:30:00.000+10:002015-04-17T08:30:29.052+10:00Different BIMs for different PurposesHow does BIM work, like really work, in the real world?<br />
<br />
There are a proliferation of diagrams with arrows and graphics invariably arranged in a circle,<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXGpJEkYzGdebj-BZ3sY0kbE-leVFrM0r5NxnZgu2iZUFGhQ9oGHxVtpjWF46Qn9nqpHTQ_FkHwRZR_1LC40iiPV_tSCmUx0OIicMBp97axiNuswQ2QYoxabTAtpeFdeg-ZQPBejB5r8e1/s1600/BIMcircles570px.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXGpJEkYzGdebj-BZ3sY0kbE-leVFrM0r5NxnZgu2iZUFGhQ9oGHxVtpjWF46Qn9nqpHTQ_FkHwRZR_1LC40iiPV_tSCmUx0OIicMBp97axiNuswQ2QYoxabTAtpeFdeg-ZQPBejB5r8e1/s1600/BIMcircles570px.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: left;">or as a seamless flow.</span>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqmbICNxH5lfwPhJqD_tv8qX6scpBL2slk7UqCId46bKd6-ExFmi50SjKLZansVDbF94ILDcHkm0WYS5M53b2Xm1gBD7B4BLpa9h_FM44tFq_mNrW5TosYc_s0yK8EWMWRUuodzE88L7U4/s1600/BIMlines_570px.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqmbICNxH5lfwPhJqD_tv8qX6scpBL2slk7UqCId46bKd6-ExFmi50SjKLZansVDbF94ILDcHkm0WYS5M53b2Xm1gBD7B4BLpa9h_FM44tFq_mNrW5TosYc_s0yK8EWMWRUuodzE88L7U4/s1600/BIMlines_570px.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
But none of these are explanations of how BIM actually works, they are blueprints of how the authors <i>think</i> BIM should work.<br />
It is an attempt to promote the myth that "BIM is about process, not technology", so that you will use the standard, guide, paid advice or academic career being pushed.<br />
<br />
BIM does involve some new and different processes, but try doing it without technology. It would go from being a highly efficient process to one that involves an enormous amount of work and time that is error prone and tedious. Basically the benefits would evaporate.<br />
<br />
The reason those of us that use BIM do so is for the efficiency benefits, both in time and accuracy. And as each of us has different deliverables and responsibilities we use BIM in distinctive ways, using the different "technologies" available to us. These "technologies" limit what we can do, and as it advances, we change the way we do things. To those of us working in the real world it is technology that drives the process.<br />
<br />
But all that doesn't matter. The original meaning and purpose of BIM (see <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/what-does-bim-mean-to-you.html" target="_blank">my post on this issue</a>) was that each player in the process used BIM to do their job more efficiently. The fact the information generated doing this could be easily provided to others was a bonus, not the purpose of using BIM in the first place.<br />
<br />
Rather than do another diagram I thought I would try and describe the different BIMs that are happening in the construction industry now. There are sub-BIMs I haven't mentioned, some of which with new technologies may grow into full BIMs.<br />
An example is Costing BIM. Quantity data can be extracted from design and construction BIMs to assist costing, but currently a separate Costing BIM, or cost model, is not created. That may change if (or when) cost estimating includes future operational costs. A separate cost model would be required as neither the design professionals nor contractors include this data in their models, their expertise and responsibilities are in building creation, not building operations.<br />
<br />
I've counted four major types of BIM in current use.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
SURVEY BIM </h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijiJUFSZXZCEfI9ugQ6M9FR_hd4zgvskdCUS63WULnGK3XlUqRrzAVDm6N4mhy7g8kI7lLoKEcczFVbfePoKOycjsZCXFSk4JB0_d822u6LIX9SAxJZkMkfKAVG4Tkg5eNpCl1VYWAn2Uj/s1600/SurveyBIM570px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijiJUFSZXZCEfI9ugQ6M9FR_hd4zgvskdCUS63WULnGK3XlUqRrzAVDm6N4mhy7g8kI7lLoKEcczFVbfePoKOycjsZCXFSk4JB0_d822u6LIX9SAxJZkMkfKAVG4Tkg5eNpCl1VYWAn2Uj/s1600/SurveyBIM570px.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Survey BIM is the creation of a virtual model of what already exists.<br />
<br />
It is very new field as advances in technology make it economic, with new players entering the field. Traditionally design professionals have modelled existing conditions, but one would expect Land Surveyors to become the main creators of survey BIM.<br />
<br />
The deliverable is an virtual model of existing buildings, services and terrain, which can be used by design professionals for new works, or by facilities management as the basis for FM BIM.<br />
<br />
Technologies like drones and laser scanning are used to gather data, but a Survey BIM is more than gathered data. This data is used to create a virtual model of intelligent objects.<br />
Currently software used is the same that design professionals use (see below) as the functionality required is similar. There is the potential for much of the process to be automated, although I doubt it will ever be fully human free. Design professionals and facility management require simplified virtual models, which will always require some judgement.<br />
<br />
A Survey BIM will only contain what has been requested. Although a lot information may be gathered, it is still not absolutely everything, nor is all data gathered necessarily included in the virtual model. The reality is, and always will be, that it is uneconomic to create a virtual world that exactly matches the real world.<br />
Therefore the contents of a Survey BIM will vary depending on the purpose it is commissioned for. One done for alteration works is unlikely to be useful for an FM BIM, and one done for FM unlikely to provide all information required by design professionals for alteration works.<br />
<br />
<h3>
DESIGN BIM</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh21Lnx8JXgfSOJPkvmH2aQxNbawD7n2rwP1z9chOtr6EFvs5kOBQT_qQ-6aAU94ljDx6e12T1lrSEVFjgkL09qkdqZV113BmsvmyJKyGDqoBAW78Bk2E30C9s7ZrD36G-AxFRoxDFFfkJQ/s1600/Vectorworks570px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh21Lnx8JXgfSOJPkvmH2aQxNbawD7n2rwP1z9chOtr6EFvs5kOBQT_qQ-6aAU94ljDx6e12T1lrSEVFjgkL09qkdqZV113BmsvmyJKyGDqoBAW78Bk2E30C9s7ZrD36G-AxFRoxDFFfkJQ/s1600/Vectorworks570px.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
A Design BIM is started when the need or desire for a building (or facility) is turned into something that can be built.<br />
<br />
It involves design professionals - architects, engineers, cost consultants.<br />
Contractors, facility management, and others may provided advice, but they are not responsible for the contents of design BIMs.<br />
<br />
Deliverables include sufficient information to describe design solutions, to construct the building, and cost it.<br />
<br />
BIM is used at this stage to create virtual design models. The main purposes of these models is to create a representation that can be tested - used for various analyses, from structural, cost, energy use, to visualization.<br />
Most BIM software can also generate traditional deliverables from the model, (drawings, schedules etc.), and is currently the most common use for design BIM.<br />
<br />
Software that is used to create design BIM models requires certain functionality to be useful for design purposes. Changes must be easy to make, and those changes must propagate throughout the model. Not all design decisions can be made at once so there needs to be the ability to "placehold' information. And there may be more than one design solution in play at any time.<br />
Typical software currently in use includes Autodesk Revit, ArchiCAD, Tekla, Bentley, Nemetschek.<br />
<br />
It would be reasonable to expect a design model to:<br />
<ul>
<li>have all elements critical to the project's construction modeled.</li>
<li>that those elements are consistently categorized (eg identifiable as walls, floors, doors etc.)</li>
<li>materials used in those elements are consistently categorized</li>
</ul>
I've used the weasel words "critical" and "consistently" because the actual requirements will depend on which particular standards (and there are many) are used, and what specific deliverables are being paid for.<br />
<br />
All this is only to the extent required to satisfy the deliverables and responsibilities of the model authors. What is crticial is that what is provided is consistent within itself, and that the data in the model is the same as other deliverables from the same author.<br />
<br />
If available a Survey BIM may be included or form the basis of a Design BIM. But generally Design BIMs are where project BIM models are initially created, and become, or form the basis of, most future BIM models.<br />
<br />
It is important to keep in mind what a design BIM is created for. That it is created for the authors' particular purposes, not for the future use of others. Its use to others is limited to extracting information useful for their particular purposes.<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONSTRUCTION BIM</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzy8pgdD7DELkhKMcIFfstKrUanp3DPZp4KByPw4djQBFJ2kNlV54pBvZQ7EODlfUrstODWU7H6MtHTGGXBD6qt-7mBGYuFD2zJhWSuCKQrt9W8xTTz-oM8aWW4WV1VOLRXnrYF3HwuyI9/s1600/navisworks570px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzy8pgdD7DELkhKMcIFfstKrUanp3DPZp4KByPw4djQBFJ2kNlV54pBvZQ7EODlfUrstODWU7H6MtHTGGXBD6qt-7mBGYuFD2zJhWSuCKQrt9W8xTTz-oM8aWW4WV1VOLRXnrYF3HwuyI9/s1600/navisworks570px.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
A Construction BIM model is used to organize the construction of a building (or facility).<br />
<br />
It involves the head contractor and their subcontractors - particularly if they provide shop drawings and\or designs.<br />
Design professionals may be involved, but only to the extent the design is changed, or if they are providing services directly to the contractor (e.g. Design & Construct contracts). In any case it is the contractor who holds responsibility for Construction BIM.<br />
<br />
The ultimate deliverable is a completed building, BIM merely assists the process. Although there may be an As-Constructed deliverable in the form of a BIM model.<br />
<br />
BIM is typically used during construction to assist processes: installation coordination, setout, time scheduling, cost control, safety management. A BIM model is increasingly being used as a location coordinator for everything, from task allocation to defect rectification.<br />
<br />
A construction BIM makes use of Design BIMs. The various design models are combined to create a single model representing the complete building (or facility). More detailed models from subcontractors are included, as well as representations of construction equipment and facilities like cranes and site sheds.<br />
Typical "federating" software includes Navisworks, SoIibri and a growing number of web based solutions. There are also other specialist software that can plug into these to do specific tasks, like costing, defects tracking etc.<br />
<br />
A Construction BIM model is not really a model as much as an aggregation of models. Data can be extracted and new data associated with elements within this aggregation, but no changes in the underlying models can be made. Only the providers of the original models can do that (hence the continued involvement of design professionals).<br />
<br />
At the completion of building works the construction BIM model is still made up of other models. It also contains information of no further use, like time scheduling data and resource allocation.<br />
<br />
In theory a construction BIM model could provide the basis for a facility management BIM model. But this relies on available software. To my knowledge none of the currently available BIM federating softwares can provide automated exports suitable for FM, that is, exports that don't require major manipulation and auditing. This is an area I am sure we will see technology providing new opportunities for BIM processes, but at the moment it falls short of any of the BIM utopias we read about.<br />
<br />
<h3>
FM BIM</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7eH4cr1ezk_g8ZrEFszAIpS8pYoQP9NAXhIvcuHvg2sz1i4BmsHwRHKlz7LZs0B4aCxhB13S_lORF_vg7luFCmqLu8SxnbqL8NfXukRziv-eoSgfcKz2PAKiWknqmCmG_XdMPgOUeNOji/s1600/youBIM570px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7eH4cr1ezk_g8ZrEFszAIpS8pYoQP9NAXhIvcuHvg2sz1i4BmsHwRHKlz7LZs0B4aCxhB13S_lORF_vg7luFCmqLu8SxnbqL8NfXukRziv-eoSgfcKz2PAKiWknqmCmG_XdMPgOUeNOji/s1600/youBIM570px.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The last BIM is the FM BIM which is used as a visual database of the things that are managed during the operation of a building (or facility). Rather than data being in text documents and spreadsheets it is linked to a BIM model where it can be found by looking through this virtual model.<br />
<br />
The FM BIM model is for the facility managers of the building, not just the ones around when the building is complete, but all future facility managers. This differs from the Design and Construction BIMs which are only useful for a limited time, and therefore can be less rigid as whoever set the model up is still around to ask questions.<br />
<br />
An FM BIM model needs to be a static model. A virtual model of <i>what is</i> - not <i>what is to be</i>, (which is what Design BIMs and Construction BIMs are).<br />
The contractor, and sometimes design professionals, role is limited to providing the BIM information they have created for their own purposes. Relevant information is re-purposed from this data to populate the FM BIM model.<br />
<br />
There is information not in the design or construction BIMs that needs to be added to an FM BIM. Maintenance manuals, warrantee information etc. supplied by subcontractors as part of their contracts. This data is generally not required for design or construction so is provided just before, or even after, construction is completed.<br />
<br />
Besides removal of redundant data an FM BIM needs to be simplified. There is no point graphically representing something if the FM team have no method to update those graphics. It is better to link lots of text data that can be easily updated to major objects. For example it is easier to change data if the lock data is part of whole door rather than represented by a separately modelled lock that has to be remodelled to reflect the change. Note that many FM BIM systems do not have a method to update graphics, for example systems based on IFC (see <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/search?q=ifc" target="_blank">my post on IFC</a>).<br />
<br />
Timing of the creation of an FM BIM is critical. If it is not created during the last stages of construction so it is ready when the building opens the data provided by the design and construction team may be out of date by the time the FM BIM is usable. For example things like equipment replacements due to failures, or commissioning changes due to things discovered after occupancy. There may be few differences, but without doing a complete audit no-one could tell - which defeats the purpose of using design and construction BIM information in the first place.<br />
<br />
The deliverable for FM BIM is an integrated data repository of information required to manage the building (or facility). There is little to gain by having only some information in the FM BIM, its purpose is to unify data to make it easy to find and avoid duplication. There is little point having a whole lot of information that is not needed, or included "in case" it will be required. The more data the more work to keep it all up to date,. The amount of data should be based on the resources available to maintain it, not the amount of data available.<br />
<br />
One of the ideals of BIM is to eradicate the work required to re-purpose information for FM uses. But as can be seen by what is involved in Survey, Design and Construction BIMs there is a lot of information not required for FM, and information that is useful is structured for purposes other than FM.<br />
<br />
Data from an FM BIM may be useful for future Survey and Design BIMs, but an FM BIM is not adequate to simply become either of those BIMs. To do so would mean carrying and keeping up to date all the extra information those BIMs require for the life of the FM BIM.<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
BIM is a fantastic technology, it allows us to engage in new, more efficient processes. But it is important to remember it is being driven by individuals harnessing BIM for their own purposes.<br />
<br />
If we concentrate on what people are actually doing, supporting each other's workflows, rather than fantasizing about a Utopian future built around theoretical processes, BIM will come to dominate naturally as the preferred way of working. Without the need for it to be mandated, by government or big business, with the loss of control over our destinies that entails.<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-11199499768245421522015-02-23T21:12:00.000+11:002015-02-23T21:12:48.966+11:00Define your BIM ServicesMore and more architects and engineers are finding BIM deliverables appearing in their engagement agreements.<br />
<br />
There seems to be an attitude amongst owners and contractors that authors of BIM models should provide everything that BIM can do. They think that architects and engineers are already putting information in so why can't they put their information in as well? For FREE.<br />
<br />
A view based (touted by some BIM evangelists) on the idea that the those creating BIM information for their own purposes are best placed to create everyone else's BIM information.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM DEMANDS</h3>
Here are some examples of demands put to architects.<br />
Let's start with an all encompassing clause:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The consultant's costs for such participation shall be deemed to be included in their PSA fee unless explicitly excluded and agreed in writing."</blockquote>
From a contractor:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Export from the model to Excel all items that appear on drawing schedules or specifications with identification marks to track against delivery dockets."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Provide, in CSV, a file that contains the X, Y, Z coordinates to use in electronic survey equipment. (all corners or centerlines if circle penetration) etc."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Ensure all modelling processes follow actual construction methodology."</blockquote>
From an owner:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Include following parameters in all Revit models:<br />
<ul>
<li>ReplacementCost: <i>- numerical value representing cost to replace the product in Australian Dollar (AU$)</i></li>
<li>AnnualMaintenanceCost: <i>- numerical value representing cost to maintain the component per year in Australian Dollars (AU$)</i></li>
<li>ContactMaintenanceContractor: <i>- email address for organisation responsible for supplying maintenance service</i>"</li>
<li>AssetIdentifier: <i>- Owner asset identifier alphanumeric value.</i></li>
<li>Barcode: <i>- Owner asset identifier numeric value.</i></li>
<li>MechAssetRegisterLocations:<i> - internal network address of owners mechanical asset register</i></li>
<li>ElecAssetRegisterLocations:<i> - <i>internal network address </i>of owners electrical asset register</i></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
HOW CAN SCOPE BE DEFINED</h3>
All design professionals undergo tertiary training. They are not trained in everything, they are trained in their field of expertise. There are also clear demarcations in expertise between design professionals, which is necessary in any team structure. It is not that hard to come up with a clear definition of where the expertise of each profession lies.<br />
<br />
This scope is established in legal cases by relying on what a 'reasonable' architect or engineer would do, and what they would be held accountable for, in the same circumstances.<br />
<br />
This same argument can be used for BIM. What would an architect or engineer provide to perform the services of a 'reasonable' professional. Anything beyond that is extra.<br />
<br />
But before we look at how this might be used to define scope, let's look at what can't be used.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT YOU CAN'T ARGUE</h3>
You can't say design professionals have always only provided paper documents (or PDF, essentially the same thing) therefore that is all a normal design services consists of.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Some design professionals get confused between HOW they do things and WHAT they are engaged to provide. Architects and engineers are not engaged to provide just documents, whether electronic or paper. They are engaged to provide a designed solution along with sufficient information to explain the design and for it to be constructed. You can not argue you should be paid extra because you are delivering your services using different tools.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
You can't say the quality or competency of what has been provided in the past is a measure of the quality and competency that should be accepted now.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As an example architects and engineers have always had to provide coordinated documentation. In reality it was extremely rare for everything to be fully coordinated, so it was accepted within the construction industry that there would be 'stuff ups' on site. Even though design professionals were in theory responsible they were rarely held accountable as it was so difficult to achieve using 2D drawings and schedules.<br />
Now the tools are available there are no excuses. If you don't use BIM and a coordination error occurs you are open to the accusation of "why didn't you use BIM?" (which can <a href="http://www.forconstructionpros.com/article/10283787/bim-emerging-as-constructions-legal-standard-of-care" target="_blank">end up in court</a>).<br />
And you certainly can't say you should be paid extra so you can do your job more competently, as the question arises - "does that mean on your normal fee you are less competent?"</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
You can't claim demands to use BIM is an exploitation of your services because others are reaping the benefits.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The mindset of exploitation builds on the previous ones above. It is based on the fallacy that BIM is not beneficial for design professionals, to both their efficiency and quality of outcome. The reality is the fact it can be beneficial to others is a bonus, a bonus the smart professionals market.</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
BIM DOESN'T CHANGE SCOPE</h3>
As mentioned above the point to keep in mind is what would a 'reasonable' professional do.<br />
To know what is reasonable you need to define what design professionals do:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Design professionals provide designed solutions along with sufficient information to explain the designs and for them to be constructed.</blockquote>
<br />
That doesn't change with BIM.<br />
<br />
<br />
Designs solve the same problems, they just may use different methods to come to a solution. It may be arrived at by analysis software run on a BIM model rather than analysis run on a simplified separate 3D model, or rule of thumb mathematical formulas based on manually measuring 2D drawings.<br />
<br />
Similarly for information, it is the same information but in a different form.<br />
Rather than schedules being excel spreadsheets they are extracts from the BIM model. Both contain the same information, it is just managed a different way. The fact this means objects in the model contain schedule information is a bonus, not an extra burden.<br />
<br />
Because an architect could model structure and then use software to do a structural analysis, so coming up with a structural design, does not make them experts at structural engineering. Nor does access to crowd simulation software make an engineer an architect. Availability of software, even expertise in its use, does not make someone an expert in the field. If that were the case every user of MS Word would be a best selling author.<br />
<br />
Yet there is this view that if design professionals are forced to use FM software they instantly become not only experts at Facility Management, but professionally responsible for outcomes.<br />
<br />
How can design professionals protect themselves?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
THE BIM STATEMENT</h3>
One way to cover yourself to create a BIM statement for your organisation. This may just establish BIM policy so everyone in the firm is on the same page, or it could be for explaining your BIM approach to clients and other design professionals you work with.<br />
<br />
Example BIM Statement (for architects):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Normal Architectural services cover brief establishment, design to meet that brief, and sufficient description of that design for it to be constructed.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Whilst these services might include consideration of construction and facilities management where they impact on design, they do not include provision of construction or FM services normally provided by contractors and property managers.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Therefore our architectural deliverables only include information pertinent to our services, they do not include information relevant to construction or FM. For example the architect does not model pour breaks in concrete floor slabs, nor include barcodes in schedules of equipment. The architect is not responsible for these, is not able to assess what is required, so does not include them.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
That is not to say the architect is incapable of including construction or FM information. These additional services could be provided as long as they are identified as separate from normal architectural services, and issues such as scope, responsibility, PI coverage, time and cost are taken into account. </blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
DEFINE WHAT YOU DO, CAN DO and ARE CAPABLE OF</h3>
The best way to shelter from unreasonable demands is to define what it is that you do.<br />
The trick is to do in a way that doesn't make it look like you are being difficult, negative, or cutting off future opportunities.<br />
<br />
This should be done in promotional material, Expressions of Interest (EOI), Requests for Proposals (RFP), client agreements and consultant agreements.<br />
<br />
The wording in each type of document obviously needs to vary as they serve different purposes, but the meaning needs to be consistent across all to avoid contradictions. I've seen a client use words from an EOI to insist a service be provided even though that service wasn't mentioned in the client agreement.<br />
<br />
The salient points to make are:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Clearly define scope of your professional services.</li>
<li>Your office <u>does</u> use BIM to do your normal work (if you do).</li>
<li>You <u>can</u> provide the products of your normal work to third parties. </li>
<li>You <u>have the capacity</u> to provide additional BIM services (if you can and want to).</li>
</ol>
<br />
You should already be defining the scope of your services and that doesn't have to appear within or adjacent to a description of BIM in your document, which is where the other points may appear.<br />
It should go without saying that you shouldn't claim to use BIM if you don't, I mention it here because unfortunately it occurs a bit too often.<br />
You might also want to slip in some paragraphs about working collaboratively, leadership and other icing on the cake.<br />
<br />
An example for EOI or RFP:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Our office uses BIM processes to deliver buildings using up to date software including Autodesk Revit.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We takes a leadership role over this process and work collaboratively with other members of design teams to facilitate coordination and integrated design solutions.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We can support construction processes and FM kick-off through the provision of project architectural information in electronic format, including 3D models and schedules as data.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We has the capability to provide additional services including BIM Management, BIM Coordination and inclusion of construction and FM data in architectural models. </blockquote>
<br />
An example for client agreements:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We employ BIM processes utilizing Autodesk Revit in the production of architectural deliverables. Besides [<i>the capability of</i>] being active participants in design and construction BIM workflows, We [<i>can/may/will</i>] provide these deliverables as structured data useful for populating construction or FM systems. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We [<i>can/may/will</i>] provide BIM leadership to the design team to guide overall project BIM processes through the design phase of the project.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Another approach is to make a list defining what you consider to be included and excluded from your standard services. Again this could be an office policy document or on a project by project basis. Some examples:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>Participate in BIM planning process</u><br />Included:<br /><ul>
<li>attend nominated number of BIM only meetings</li>
</ul>
Extra:<br /><ul>
<li>manage BIM planning process</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<u>BIM Execution Plan</u><br />Included:<br /><ul>
<li>in-house project BIM Plan</li>
<li>change once to align in-house project BIM Plan to project BIM plan</li>
</ul>
Extra:<br /><ul>
<li>create in-house project BIM Plan to specific requirements</li>
<li>create project wide BIM plan with other participants</li>
<li>manage project wide BIM plan during project</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
WHY IS THIS NECESSARY?</h3>
Design professional tend not to share information around their relationships with clients. A fact clients take advantage through divide and conquer.<br />
Some BIM demands are quite scary, not just the hit on profitability, but also the possibility of litigation not covered by professional indemnity insurance. Yet professional design firms are largely left to fend for themselves.<br />
<br />
One would expect our professional organizations to take some leadership, even if it was just to be clear about what does and does not constitute the services of their members. The usual argument is that it is a commercial decision what services a firm offers and is paid for. But the reality is most commercial clients of design firms are larger and more powerful than they are, it is hardly the level playing field the commercial decision argument is based on.<br />
<br />
The idea is not to restrict services design professionals can provide, nor dictate what is paid. A firm can always decide to provide additional services, and even decide to do them for free. A firm can obtain and offer the expertise required to provide FM services, or enhanced BIM services. These are the commercial decisions a firm makes.<br />
<br />
What we can't let happen is the normal services and expertise we have be expanded without our consent into areas we have little expertise, or indeed, interest in.<br />
<br />
This is not just an issue for the owners of design firms. If your bosses agree to do extra work for free they are not going to be giving you anything extra to do the work. They will expect you not only to do the extra work, but also to learn how to do it, and all this within the same time frame. And really, do you want your job to become one largely of data entry?<br />
<br />
The expectation of free BIM services will pervade our industry and jobs unless we make a stand. Owners of design firms need to be clear that BIM services are extra, employees need to make their bosses aware that extra work takes extra time, and work outside their expertise takes training.<br />
<br />
And we should all be sharing our experiences more. If you come across what you believe are unreasonable demands say something. Tell your colleagues, complain to your professional organisation, write letters, write emails, comment where pertinent, hell, even write blog posts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-69043645019922646642015-01-12T18:00:00.000+11:002015-01-16T08:30:11.600+11:00Renaming (UK) NBS Shared ParametersThe UK National Building specification (NBS) has released a Revit shared parameter file containing the shared parameters that conform to their standard. This is another sterling contribution by the NBS towards the UK's aim of <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/BIM/articles/bim-levels-explained.asp" target="_blank">BIM Maturity Level 2</a> by 2016. But before getting too excited there is a problem - a significant problem.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BACKGROUND</h3>
The National Building Specification (<a href="http://www.thenbs.com/" target="_blank">NBS</a>) in the UK is a commercial organization owned by the Royal Institute of British Architects (<a href="http://www.architecture.com/" target="_blank">RIBA</a>). It produces specification products for architects and has lately been developing a range of BIM products.<br />
<br />
One of it initiatives is the development of a <a href="http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/" target="_blank">National BIM Library</a> of manufacturer BIM components. The aim is to be software agnostic but to be relevant in the real world, and the fact that IFC doesn't cope well with component definitions, they are including different software formats, including Revit.<br />
As part of this process they have had to define standard parameters for the components in their library. They developed the <a href="http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/nbs-bim-object-standard" target="_blank">NBS BIM Object Standard</a> document explaining these parameters. And that is why they made available a <a href="http://www.nationalbimlibrary.com/nbs-shared-parameters" target="_blank">Revit shared parameter file</a> containing these parameters.<br />
<br />
The NBS is to be applauded for their efforts. Their <a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/BIM/" target="_blank">web site</a> clear, concise and open to everyone, and all these tools are freely available.<br />
<br />
But . . . .<br />
<br />
<h3>
THE PROBLEM</h3>
The names of the parameters in the NBS shared parameter file are not identified as belonging to, or originating from, the NBS.<br />
Which is a bit rude considering we are inviting those parameters into our models to live amongst our, and other guest parameters.<br />
<br />
Although the parameters are in their own group and have unique GUIDs (Global Unique IDentifiers) many names are regular English words, with ambiguous parameters like "Revision", "Version", "Name". Revision of what? - COBie export; specification; schedule; O&M manual; manufacturer model?<br />
And some parameter names are identical to built in Revit parameters. For example "Description"; "Manufacturer"; "Finish".<br />
<br />
For Revit users this is a problem. Unlike older softwares Revit doesn't use the name of things as the main identifier. Like a properly constructed database it uses an internal unique identifier. The name is merely another piece of data associated with that identifier. That is why when you rename, say a section detail, or a sheet number, it renames all references everywhere - instantly.<br />
<br />
When creating schedules Revit lists all parameters available as fields that can be used in the schedule. As names are just data, if there are multiple parameters with the same name they will be listed. So if you use the NBS shared parameters there will be two available fields called "Description". The problem is you can't tell which is which. Both the group they are in and their GUID are not accessible when creating a schedule.<br />
<br />
But the problem is wider than for mere Revit users. Imagine the scope of this problem when there are multiple models from multiple authors. Lists of fields all with the same name, with no (easy) way of identifying who created them or what they are for.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg99LTMgrmRn2NIHDQMitpSISpmhdsExWVNvB-dsP-6AcVc3yQs1iVd0AF58qxP86hc8mD0YUSOKAfzWR_EKlz6-WPqpj18GG7IRe_449BJPwqvLkAxyfUMtbWlTtga1OPLCdBBmH6D5YPS/s1600/DuplicateParameters01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg99LTMgrmRn2NIHDQMitpSISpmhdsExWVNvB-dsP-6AcVc3yQs1iVd0AF58qxP86hc8mD0YUSOKAfzWR_EKlz6-WPqpj18GG7IRe_449BJPwqvLkAxyfUMtbWlTtga1OPLCdBBmH6D5YPS/s1600/DuplicateParameters01.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Which parameter?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The created schedule is equally unhelpful:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioSt4YlpUsHT9rDeVcXyKv1bVlcL1p3KC4QuamJ80T8O015wjlNu0gmjCRx2bcd3v0HVpx7ri7npSfvrZDGAmoxMqEJ4QY0Eu-xdNmKmlOk_TunaMo21cB126cjlFcfepuebxGkaHRcV1H/s1600/ScheduleParameterNotIdentified.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioSt4YlpUsHT9rDeVcXyKv1bVlcL1p3KC4QuamJ80T8O015wjlNu0gmjCRx2bcd3v0HVpx7ri7npSfvrZDGAmoxMqEJ4QY0Eu-xdNmKmlOk_TunaMo21cB126cjlFcfepuebxGkaHRcV1H/s1600/ScheduleParameterNotIdentified.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The usual way around this issue is to not just ensure names are unique within the project, but that they help identify where they came from or what their purpose is.<br />
The most common approach is to prefix or suffix custom parameters with an acronym identifying the author firm or organization. For example the <a href="http://www.anzrs.org/" target="_blank">ANZ Revit Standards group</a> adds an '<i>_ANZRS</i>' suffix to its shared parameters, software house RTV Tools uses a '<i>RTV</i>' prefix, Codebook uses "<i>CdeB_</i>".<br />
And parameters without a prefix or suffix are assumed to be built-in Revit parameters.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRdecqO10v6ESybYP6_nnyvM7kPLERhc5Tj3975yyCgLJHzNaVwZTND3F70ps5RC-gYan1E5nk6_IWd56_6QZ-Q6-gplWGaGSeKxTXe-cLq2NcWVjRm-cnaWBZ1RuXJ0l9_EZ9O3asx3vw/s1600/ANZRSparameterExample.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRdecqO10v6ESybYP6_nnyvM7kPLERhc5Tj3975yyCgLJHzNaVwZTND3F70ps5RC-gYan1E5nk6_IWd56_6QZ-Q6-gplWGaGSeKxTXe-cLq2NcWVjRm-cnaWBZ1RuXJ0l9_EZ9O3asx3vw/s1600/ANZRSparameterExample.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">ANZRS Shared Parameter file example</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
With a prefix or suffix parameters can be identified by their name:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5ypirKQ3rAB4mGv14Aq2694DlK-5Gc4fJlTlGGcQV2PU4gar96ktOlxZx0uzlb49bXaoGv7QcQS41-qFTugzVhSVkRXl6JGfVY8k_FSrBua86245c0T-AnqCrRcwopJ2pGs1xKCKmdSxu/s1600/DuplicateParameters02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5ypirKQ3rAB4mGv14Aq2694DlK-5Gc4fJlTlGGcQV2PU4gar96ktOlxZx0uzlb49bXaoGv7QcQS41-qFTugzVhSVkRXl6JGfVY8k_FSrBua86245c0T-AnqCrRcwopJ2pGs1xKCKmdSxu/s1600/DuplicateParameters02.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Identifiable parameters</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Which makes the schedule much more user friendly:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilbs_5_T1jT5iJVNE84Rlqlw3kOjpH0NUMWPETmM9j0c5B7rtKcBbHysSuR_f-sCgK_6c_uzwab9rCDklmETsamsLedKFJMyTE7CkCxF6rC9bUmCk-JIlTNfQAqbnHs1-ylUNESRbDKMnQ/s1600/ScheduleParameterIdentified.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilbs_5_T1jT5iJVNE84Rlqlw3kOjpH0NUMWPETmM9j0c5B7rtKcBbHysSuR_f-sCgK_6c_uzwab9rCDklmETsamsLedKFJMyTE7CkCxF6rC9bUmCk-JIlTNfQAqbnHs1-ylUNESRbDKMnQ/s1600/ScheduleParameterIdentified.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
But the NBS has decided their parameters are the only ones anyone needs. To quote from a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=4103410&type=member&item=5957794185191899137" target="_blank">LinkedIn discussion</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>We see the launch of the NBS BIM Standard as a document that the industry <u>will adopt</u> and apply to the content created for projects whether this content is created by the NBS, designers, or content creators.</i>" </blockquote>
<br />
Apparently the ONLY document we will all adopt.<br />
<br />
<h3>
THE ATTITUDE</h3>
What NBS is ignoring is that BIM deliverables are only one of many things model authors require from the parameters in their models.<br />
<br />
As design professionals our primary deliverable is sufficient information to construct the facility, things like door schedules, finishes schedules, room data sheets. These may include some parameters required by other deliverables like COBie, but there are parameters not required by COBie, as well as parameters required by COBie that we don't use.<br />
Contractors use the designers information to organize the construction of the building. Again there is not a one to one relationship between what they require and other uses and deliverables.<br />
<br />
We also use parameters for our own internal purposes, such as various analysis like daylight contribution, structural design, mechanical system design, construction sequencing etc, as well as for internal QA and compliance. For example to check building code compliance I created a <i>ARCH_VentilationArea</i> parameter for windows that calculates the area available for ventilation when a window is fully open.<br />
<br />
By the NBS assuming their standard will be the only one creates a headache for software vendors who are trying to sell their software across the world, and for large firms that operate in different countries. Believe it or not there are other standards than the NBS.<br />
<br />
<h3>
THE SOLUTION</h3>
If the NBS continue to remain recalcitrant there is a work around in Revit.
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="float: left; margin: 1em;">
<tbody>
<tr><td>Note that this will only work if done BEFORE any NBS components are placed into your project. Once a shared parameter exists in a project file, whether brought in by placed components or created via project parameters, its name can not be changed. This is the case even if you attempt to remove all references to it by purging all components and deleting all project parameters.
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
1. Edit the shared parameter file by adding a prefix to each name (e.g. NBS_ or COBie_ ).<br />
<br />
(the quickest way is to open the shared parameter file in spreadsheet software like MS Excel, OpenOffice Calc, Google Sheets, do the edit then save or export as a tab delimited file)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwtLGpHCUgrpOF6YdyCWmo9POpQEEiLtV0dU6M8DG2zZVAvn3BjH_cJoNjN1uWgCHpYmX4LHYw65O-kVAjf84fxEDq9eQK4mOK7ARr6wDn4x1sA5imfL6I7UlYCNK0_blr5CCG2Bxtrtse/s1600/NBSrenamedParameters.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwtLGpHCUgrpOF6YdyCWmo9POpQEEiLtV0dU6M8DG2zZVAvn3BjH_cJoNjN1uWgCHpYmX4LHYw65O-kVAjf84fxEDq9eQK4mOK7ARr6wDn4x1sA5imfL6I7UlYCNK0_blr5CCG2Bxtrtse/s1600/NBSrenamedParameters.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
2. Point Revit to your edited NBS shared parameter file.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrUfGq0vHhw8cCuNyNSjVKf5Nb6FlwpnQurbXj1zCw8XEJ4VBDO1U7XSXX75Nmue-PKASJJ2SkwtjsKAKjb1G6cXBJBXRbaYwx8QReOFkoUvanwqu-kyMW_kRXoTiPluhpRvx8PSbIW0lV/s1600/PointToSharedParameterFile.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrUfGq0vHhw8cCuNyNSjVKf5Nb6FlwpnQurbXj1zCw8XEJ4VBDO1U7XSXX75Nmue-PKASJJ2SkwtjsKAKjb1G6cXBJBXRbaYwx8QReOFkoUvanwqu-kyMW_kRXoTiPluhpRvx8PSbIW0lV/s1600/PointToSharedParameterFile.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
3. Add each parameter from your edited file to your project (or Template file) as Project Parameters.<br />
<br />
(you may find an add-in to do this faster, e.g. <a href="https://www.cadtechnologycenter.com/products/revit-expresstools/bim-manager-suite/bim-manager-suite-overview/revit-express-tools-tools/702-family-processor-2.html" target="_blank">CTC Shared Parameter manager</a>, <a href="http://www.rtvtools.com/product/rtv-shared-parameter-manager/" target="_blank">RTV</a>, <a href="http://www.rushforthprojects.com/#" target="_blank">Rushforth Projects</a> for paid, <a href="http://apps.case-inc.com/content/free-super-shared-parameter-loader" target="_blank">Case Apps</a> for a free tool)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiASl-hmfdZV7d8k6wyWdqrzp_dl5YBmjAOaUhKh2giuPDkBtL_rf7MSPYwV7ODmy7_lpnirwesRVFX06yxmI28RScK8yFrhXI9VkdP4FbiMIv_H4TX_jCQRMb-THIGrNrpw9OWTsXCQPJM/s1600/AddProjectParameter02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiASl-hmfdZV7d8k6wyWdqrzp_dl5YBmjAOaUhKh2giuPDkBtL_rf7MSPYwV7ODmy7_lpnirwesRVFX06yxmI28RScK8yFrhXI9VkdP4FbiMIv_H4TX_jCQRMb-THIGrNrpw9OWTsXCQPJM/s1600/AddProjectParameter02.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
4. Point Revit back to your standard shared parameter file.<br />
<br />
<br />
Done.<br />
<br />
Now when any components from the NBS library are inserted into your project all the NBS parameters will use your names instead of the NBS names.<br />
<br />
Parameters in NBS component (Revit family .RFA file):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtwUeVo5fs-TgOokkbWnrmgYecUf6TfVDq7_TnMccgOMFe7OiaDFbj6NL0ek1JK70MowyMY-H4S6mM89Sxwo0Q_MQGAW80dS8weF6oSS0edZi4HWxF0Ik1rgkCGqVmRsU0ssqxUF9TlQOI/s1600/NBSfamilyORIGINAL.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtwUeVo5fs-TgOokkbWnrmgYecUf6TfVDq7_TnMccgOMFe7OiaDFbj6NL0ek1JK70MowyMY-H4S6mM89Sxwo0Q_MQGAW80dS8weF6oSS0edZi4HWxF0Ik1rgkCGqVmRsU0ssqxUF9TlQOI/s1600/NBSfamilyORIGINAL.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Parameters of component placed in your project:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU0mQCwbgmA7UVJG231teTCxdM6ZcC5Vqw1uNZYri_OH8gqczHwvHieVhdgD5oKQY_UBp2ASJAnx8qi0oyulSSYUWGBrTRcnM6MBm74B2_OdfSK15h0AaekkLGlb1bpjCsBu6ebXmt6wGs/s1600/NBSfamilyInProject.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiU0mQCwbgmA7UVJG231teTCxdM6ZcC5Vqw1uNZYri_OH8gqczHwvHieVhdgD5oKQY_UBp2ASJAnx8qi0oyulSSYUWGBrTRcnM6MBm74B2_OdfSK15h0AaekkLGlb1bpjCsBu6ebXmt6wGs/s1600/NBSfamilyInProject.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Doing this won't disadvantage anyone else in the project.<br />
<br />
Even though the name is different the GUID is the same. So if you link a model from someone else that uses the standard NBS name that data will appear in your model under your renamed parameter. If they link your model your data will appear under the name they used for the parameter.<br />
<br />
If someone is extracting data for, say a COBie export, it should make no difference as long as the export relies on GUIDs and not names.<br />
If names are critical then either rename the field in your Revit schedule or rename columns in the receiving software (e.g. COBie spreadsheet).<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="float: left; margin: 1em;">
<tbody>
<tr><td>What you DON'T want to do is create your own new shared parameters (via Revit's Shared Parameter dialog) that mimic the NBS shared parameters. If you do this your parameters will have a different GUID to the NBS parameters and therefore will not contain the data in NBS components.
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
It is disappointing the NBS has taken this attitude. Part of the BIM revolution is the breaking down of the "silos" people work in, allowing people to work collaboratively. The NBS approach seems to be to replace the silos of others with their particular silo.<br />
<br />
Not very BIM like. Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-6085569893993335182014-11-18T10:55:00.000+11:002014-11-18T13:30:45.364+11:00IP - it is not all yours, get used to itWhen discussing BIM with those yet to take it up the topic of Intellectual Property invariably comes up. It is so important to them it comes across as a major reason they are not using BIM (although I suspect it is more of an excuse).<br />
<br />
For some reason BIM authors (architects, engineers, etc) think that because they create the initial BIM information they have the right to full control and to charge for the BIM model throughout the life of the building.<br />
<br />
Then on the other hand we have contractors and owners who believe, because they are paying the authors, that they have absolute rights over all BIM created to do as they please with it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
IP and BIM PROCESS</h3>
One of the tenets of BIM is that all information is contained in one place; the BIM model (which may be an amalgam of several BIM models). And that all parties have access to this information so everyone is working on the same, up to date, information.<br />
<br />
One of the effects of this is that there can be no duplicates of the same information.<br />
The architect schedules doors, the hardware supplier adds to that schedule, they don't create their own. The architect doesn't model ductwork, they use the mechanical engineer's model.<br />
<br />
So for BIM to work at all project participants must not only have unrestrained access to each other's BIM, they are not allowed to create their own version of some-one else's.<br />
If any party tries to restrict access the whole process starts to collapse.<br />
<br />
However access doesn't necessarily mean unfettered control. This is still a place for IP rights.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
IP CONCERNS</h3>
One of the problems discussing IP is that often people are talking about different things. They have different reasons for, or place more emphasis on, particular concerns.<br />
But even then I don't see much mileage in these concerns, certainly not enough to withhold information.<br />
<br />
<h4>
THEFT OF EFFORT</h4>
The old "why should I give away my work for free" argument. It has the appearance of taking the moral high ground but has a number of flaws.<br />
<br />
Money is only one form of compensation. Barter is another. In the BIM context if everyone shares everyone benefits. For example allowing the quantity surveyor to directly measure from your BIM model means more timely estimates reducing the risk of you doing unpaid abortive work when the estimate blows the budget.<br />
<br />
We work in a market economy, just because you place a dollar value on what you have produced doesn't mean others will. There is little point with-holding something from others that has no actual value, or a lessor value, to them. All you do is damage your reputation, and possibly the chances of future work.<br />
<br />
And lastly the reality of the industry. If information is withheld that is required contracts will be changed to ensure that information is made available. The danger here is contracts invariably overreach, they are more onerous than they need to be. We are already seeing this with contracts that take all IP rights away whether justified or not.<br />
<br />
<h4>
THEFT OF IDEAS</h4>
BIM doesn't make any difference to IP rights over original ideas which are already covered by copyright law.<br />
Does the possession of a BIM model make it easier for some-one to copy your design, to break the law? In a sense, because BIM contains more information that is structured more efficiently than traditional product like CAD files, spreadsheets and drawings. But the theft itself is no easier. In fact it could be argued it would be more straightforward to identify a stolen BIM model due to the uniqueness of how data is arranged, as to compared to a drawing consisting just of lines and text.<br />
<br />
There is also a belief among some that every idea they come up with is unique and universally cherished.<br />
That parametric door that can represent nearly every possible type of door is just as valuable to the contractor who just wants to know what each door is. The clever equipment schedule that you believe gives you a competitive advantage so will be copied by everyone who sees it because it is so brilliant.<br />
Your innovative work practices are important to you but are rarely suited to anyone else.<br />
Experienced BIM authors know that components sourced from elsewhere are never exactly what is needed to fit their own work practices. Many a time I have spent more effort trying to rework some-one else's component than it would have taken to recreate it from scratch.<br />
<br />
<h4>
LOSS OF CONTROL</h4>
Some have concerns that if they provide their work in an editable format (whether BIM or CAD) some-one will make changes to their work without their knowledge and/or permission.<br />
To make changes to work attributed to some-one else is fraud and clearly illegal. To withhold your work is overkill and the equivalent of never getting out of bed to avoid anything bad happening.<br />
<br />
Some believe if they maintain control they are in the best position to ensure their intellectual effort, their design, will be carried through in a way that they will be happy with. That if they are not in full control others will make poor decisions compromising their brilliant ideas.<br />
This argument is hard to convince owners and contractors as they expect the documents you provide as part of your service to contain enough information for your design to be fully realised. If you argue otherwise they just see it as evidence your documents, and your design, is deficient and you intend to 'fix it up' later at their expense.<br />
<br />
There is also a belief that with a copy of an original work contractors or owners are free to get others to take over the job. Again most jurisdictions have laws that already cover this, and in any case possession of your IP is unlikely to be the deciding factor in your client making this decision.<br />
It ignores the fact that BIM output is the result of expert knowledge and professional responsibility. It is not like a set of Ikea instructions anyone can use. Only very cavalier professionals would take on the responsibility of some-one else's work without spending a significant amount of time checking it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM IP APPLIES TO</h3>
IP applies to many things but this post is about BIM. The 'products' of BIM that IP may impact include:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Whole BIM model (<a href="http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Federated_building_information_model" target="_blank">federated</a> or integrated)</li>
<li>BIM Model contribution (as separate model or co-author)</li>
<li>BIM model components (e.g. equipment, doors, etc)</li>
<li>Editable drawings from the BIM model (e.g. CAD files).</li>
<li>Editable schedules from the BIM model (e.g. Excel files).</li>
</ul>
<br />
Note that the last two items existed before BIM. Generally BIM has not created new IP issues, just extended existing ones.<br />
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
RIGHTS</h3>
There is often a misconception that obtaining IP protection means complete ownership, giving full control to the 'owner'. This is not correct, IP is a safeguard, not a title to ownership.<br />
IP applying to a 'product' is managed by assigning 'Rights' to it, who has the right to do what with it. Often IP discussions are really about Rights, not the application of IP per se.<br />
<br />
Rights are something authors should be concerned about. It is where the risks and rewards lie.<br />
What are the types of Rights people are concerned about when it comes to BIM?<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The right to:</span><br />
<h4>
<b>be identified as author.</b></h4>
Sometimes called 'Moral Rights'. This is covered by IP law in many countries and does not change with BIM.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>decide what uses are permitted.</b></h4>
An author should be able to stipulate what their model is suitable for, or more realistically stipulate what it has been created for and let others make the call if it is suitable or not (authors don't necessarily know what other professionals require so how could they be definitive about what their BIM is suitable for?).<br />
But this shouldn't extend to complete denial of access for uses not permitted. Firstly, not all possible uses can be predicted, and secondly even a model unsuitable for a particular use may still be of some use as long as its limitations are known and acknowledged.<br />
<br />
The best way to deal with this Right is for authors to stipulate what their BIM model has been created for (i.e. their particular uses), and an affirmation that it contains all information they, as authors, are engaged to produce.<br />
For example an architect would say their model "contains sufficient information to describe the materials and location of those materials". What they shouldn't say is their model is "suitable for estimating uses" as it infers they have modelled every material in accurate quantities. <br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>decide who can use it. </b></h4>
Some believe their 'ownership' of their BIM contribution gives them the right to withhold it from whomever they choose. Whilst an author may have a good reason to prevent certain parties from using their work their reasons may conflict with the needs of other project team members and the project as a whole. The outright power of veto doesn't work in a BIM project.<br />
<br />
However it is reasonable to insist you be notified if some-one else receives your work. There may be matters you need to inform other parties about the content and status of your work. An all too common occurrence is contractors providing design professional's work to sub-contractors that is inappropriate, incomplete, or not reissued when superseded. I have personally experience a situation where the piling contractor was given our documents (architect's) to put directly in their survey total station, when all our documents had were roughly placed piles for context. They should have been given the structural engineers drawings, but neither ourselves or the structural engineer knew they had been provided with our BIM model.<br />
<br />
The usual way to deal with provision to inappropriate parties is to stipulate the work can only be provided to those directly involved in the particular project it was created for. The way to deal with inappropriate use is to define uses that are permitted.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>demand payment for its use.</b></h4>
Traditionally only drawings and written material were provided to others, which they referred to but didn't directly use to generate their work. But a BIM model can be integrated into other's work, for example running an analysis or directly measuring quantities. Because of this some believe they should get a cut in the obvious windfall others are getting.<br />
But there is no windfall. Everyone is relying on getting the information they require from everyone else, no-one has budgeted to pay extra.<br />
<br />
That is not to say there are no situations where you can charge. Certainly if your work is to be used for a different project, or purpose not involving your particular project. But charging project participants is not normal practice. If you intend to do it within your project you need to make that clear at the very beginning of the project, when negotiating your engagement agreement. And good luck with that!<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>use it for other projects and purposes. </b></h4>
It is perfectly reasonable for authors to expect their work will not be used for projects and purposes they are not a party to. This is what standard IP covers, and is what is lost when all IP is signed away.<br />
There is no reason for IP to be completely signed away for BIM to work, as long as all parties agree to provide their work to other members of the project team. It is when there is a belief that there will be resistance to this that owners and contractors try and take everyone's IP via contract clauses.<br />
<br />
The best way to fend off attempts to take complete control of your IP is to be accommodating. Show that you will make your work available to all those that will require it for the project. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR</h3>
But with Rights come responsibility.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>If you claim authorship you are forever associated with the project.</li>
<li>If you dictate what your BIM model can be used for you accept responsibility that it is suitable for that use.</li>
<li>If you refuse to provide your BIM to some-one you will be expected to provide good reasons and prove it does not impinge on your obligations to the project.</li>
<li>If you insist on the Right to charge for use of your BIM model you take on the responsibility of your BIM model being suitable for the purpose you are charging for.<br />In most legal jurisdictions the act of accepting money infers you have provided a useful product, no matter what any written agreement says. You can't charge a Quantity Surveyor for using your model for measurement and not accept responsibility for it's accuracy and completeness. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
You might consider forgoing Rights you may be entitled to avoid responsibility.<br />
For example forgo the right to dictate what your BIM can be used for and instead provide it on an 'as is' basis.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT CAN YOU DO</h3>
Always keep in mind that BIM processes require information to be not only shared, but shared in particular formats. That means you have to provide your computer files to others, there is no way around this.<br />
But that doesn't mean you have to forgo all IP protection. The best approach is to assess whether the rights you want impede the flow of information within the project or not. If they don't, insist on them, if they do, work out a way to achieve your aim another way or accept it is not going to happen.<br />
<br />
Specific advice on IP in contracts and agreements is beyond my expertise so I leave that to others. Some resources:<br />
<a href="http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Copyright_of_building_design" target="_blank">Designing Buildings Wiki (UK)</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nationalbimstandard.org/copyright.php" target="_blank">National BIM standard - US</a><br />
<a href="http://wp.architecture.com.au/bim/groups/legal-procurement/" target="_blank">BIM / IPD <span style="font-size: x-small;">[AUS]</span></a><br />
<br />
Generally you should expect that each participant retain IP rights over their contribution, and that the rights of others only extend to their requirements for the particular project.<br />
<br />
<br />
You may have limited control over agreements with others but what you can do is manipulate the data you provide to others. For example sheets and annotation (text and dimensions) are not required in the BIM model you provide when you are also providing drawings and written schedules.<br />
<br />
<br />
Methods include:<br />
<h4>
<b>Make recipients aware of limitations:</b></h4>
Have standard written "conditions of use" that can be included in agreements with others and included with all document issues.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>Use non-editable file format:</b></h4>
Provide IFC, Navisworks, DWF, PDF etc instead of your authoring software.<br />
(These formats, to varying degrees, allow access to BIM data.)<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>Remove temptation:</b></h4>
Strip BIM models of all but essential elements and data. <br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>Identify your work:</b></h4>
Embed ownership data within BIM objects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
EXAMPLE REVIT SPECIFIC METHODS</h3>
There may be others, but I have used these in the past:<br />
<br />
<b><u>Embed "Conditions Of Use":</u></b><br />
Create a <i>Starting View</i> and put your Conditions Of Use on it.<br />
(Revit always displays this view when opening the file so it is hard for someone to argue they didn't see it).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWqE3K_xsTna5i4uBSUZvcg5i-2WfK0zkiYrptar63Dg-RNEChkVvgeoMD6udcRtegkmrVw6Cn4TC6pH_8N95IV-sH6w6A0byJOUAyyJXYFziTKweblqqHi5vqVx9hx3mg_5VoArKjN5_L/s1600/DisclaimerSheetRevit.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWqE3K_xsTna5i4uBSUZvcg5i-2WfK0zkiYrptar63Dg-RNEChkVvgeoMD6udcRtegkmrVw6Cn4TC6pH_8N95IV-sH6w6A0byJOUAyyJXYFziTKweblqqHi5vqVx9hx3mg_5VoArKjN5_L/s1600/DisclaimerSheetRevit.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Only export the model, excluding all annotation and sheets:</u></b><br />
Create 3D view, hide what you don't want to include, place this view on a sheet. In the Project Browser right click over the sheet and pick <i>Save to New File</i>. Open the new Revit file and add a <i>Starting View</i> with Conditions Of Use.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDw27GXtoLBccY-xBhPRPP-7TESUoUStF5jMhahVkR1jBVdwtgSJpaGwZXUCgJERZ6VA96UuMdvhN8lkCGsYefzgIAuvwEbNYRn_DDliJ0UJ5mTVekESSlcjC2upcmHs8zezvmN1S9mX_M/s1600/SaveToNewFile.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDw27GXtoLBccY-xBhPRPP-7TESUoUStF5jMhahVkR1jBVdwtgSJpaGwZXUCgJERZ6VA96UuMdvhN8lkCGsYefzgIAuvwEbNYRn_DDliJ0UJ5mTVekESSlcjC2upcmHs8zezvmN1S9mX_M/s1600/SaveToNewFile.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Delete specific views and sheets:</u></b><br />
Create a schedule of views, manually delete views. Do the same with a Sheet List.<br />
Or use an add-in to delete views, sheets, etc.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjW223J05cFwaOTJdN7Kv8xJiCP7WaOgcM6176wtORfmSeAyUUlfzCc9SzUHw3kZyVNmlbRb0rSeAsE2_Iab11f7QMzlEi57uukhwASKT2sfuETXWWq8vvOvSCWtAJox1lCKMJwAh4ot-n/s1600/SheetsToDelete.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjW223J05cFwaOTJdN7Kv8xJiCP7WaOgcM6176wtORfmSeAyUUlfzCc9SzUHw3kZyVNmlbRb0rSeAsE2_Iab11f7QMzlEi57uukhwASKT2sfuETXWWq8vvOvSCWtAJox1lCKMJwAh4ot-n/s1600/SheetsToDelete.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Make your work identifiable:</u></b><br />
Add parameters to all your families that contain copyright information (place as a formula so it can't be easily edited).<br />
Prefix all your shared parameters with your organization's acronym.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2qLBtLSi1qpegEEiOpdiJYNStPjl9EuQccwmGmqMn0Vw3bTgzsoqQuCW95oKsIbo4dxLmfA6bskw4crciloUzNah9sbOsflmQyz7PFCdOhvUlbwV_KJtlpXqrr2eRE_ZE5MxQtLoZ7qzq/s1600/SharedParameterOwnership.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2qLBtLSi1qpegEEiOpdiJYNStPjl9EuQccwmGmqMn0Vw3bTgzsoqQuCW95oKsIbo4dxLmfA6bskw4crciloUzNah9sbOsflmQyz7PFCdOhvUlbwV_KJtlpXqrr2eRE_ZE5MxQtLoZ7qzq/s1600/SharedParameterOwnership.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
Get used to the fact that no-one is using BIM as a pretext for stealing your IP. Others don't want to own your BIM, they just want to be able to use it.<br />
<br />
They want the right to use the model to check if a hole can be drilled without hitting any pipes or wires. Everyone understands use of BIM doesn't give them the right to construct an identical building somewhere else.<br />
<br />
IP is an issue of concern, as it always has been, but not sufficient to block or hobble the use of BIM.<br />
Let's stop chasing windmills and get on with the real game, making IP in BIM fair to everyone.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table bgcolor="#FEFCFF" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="float: left; margin: 1em;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><img align="middle" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjJqJ_acgARsynyyydfm3gFejojcIchqBi3GEouMr45TaUmURQa56uYfE-RVlRMiWpEpp9I0rcBHAzNeNIe6_Cr8MCY-U5sC6DvLhNudrMnQn44rklgHHRZCF10tkC11i3ejAJj-ZBIEct/s1600/Book+1+Cover075px.png" /> </td><td><br /></td>
<td><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Bored with BIM?</b><br /><i>Need a present for that special woman in your life?</i>
<br /><a href="http://annabuckley.com/books/" target="_blank">The Lost Woman series</a> follows the adventures of Christina as she makes her way through a world of design, fashion, new media and ... men.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The complete series, "<i>AWAKENING the lost woman</i>", "<i>CAPTURING the lost woman</i>" & "<i>FINDING the lost woman</i>" is available now on
<a href="http://amazon.com/author/annabuckley" target="_blank">Amazon</a>,
<a href="http://store.kobobooks.com/en-US/Search?query=Anna%20Buckley&fcsearchfield=Author" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Kobo</a>,
<a href="https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Anna_Buckley_Awakening_the_lost_woman?id=H4RjAwAAQBAJ" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Google Books</a>, <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/anna-buckley?store=book&keyword=anna+buckley" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Barnes & Noble</a>
and iBooks.
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-58148761356363215482014-08-30T17:17:00.000+10:002014-08-30T17:49:01.192+10:00The Nature of NamingBIM is by nature a shared environment. For example in the context of Revit each discipline team work together in one file.<br />
This new paradigm means things have to be shared, people can't isolate themselves in the CAD files they are working in and name things however they want. Nor can they create new things to suit their own purposes. Anything created in a BIM file is for everyone to use.<br />
<br />
How things are named becomes critical, because it is how different things are recognised by different people.<br />
Not only so people can find the things they need, but also so things that are the same are not created multiple times with different names.<br />
<br />
Many things are named in BIM, from filenames to parameters. This post concentrates on the naming of components (families in Revit). But the principles expounded are applicable to all naming.<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT NAMES IN BIM ARE USED FOR</h3>
Who uses and relies on names in the BIM model?<br />
Receivers of BIM information don't care what the name of an object is. The information they require comes from object parameters. You don't produce a wall schedule for the contractor that lists the Revit names of walls, you list wall code, thickness, materials, fire, acoustic ratings etc. Indeed, if you are asked to use a particular naming schema by a client or contractor in your BIM software politely refuse. It is totally unnecessary. <br />
<br />
The purpose of names is so BIM authors can identify things when they are creating them. When confronted by a list of wall names in their software they can identify and select the one they need. Or if what they need doesn't exist they can create a new one using a naming schema that others will understand, so someone else can use the wall that they made.<br />
<br />
If objects have so many parameters why is the name of it so important? The information is there, you just have to expose the relevant parameter value.<br />
This is true. But the stumbling block from a practical point of view is "exposing the parameter". In an ideal world (with ideal software) you could sort and filter by all the parameters an object has rather than just its name. There are Revit add-ins that do this to varying degrees (I welcome comments suggesting such add-ins). Revit out-of-the-box does not. The other issue is even if you could select by parameter the name still has to be unique. Unless the add-in controls naming of components, you still have to come up with a way to create unique names.<br />
That said, an add-in may be a viable solution. But for the rest of us who can't get our bosses to pay for add-ins the problem remains.<br />
<br />
<h3>
BIM IS NOT CAD</h3>
Naming was also important in CAD. Every office had a CAD Naming Standard. But there are important differences to BIM.<br />
<br />
The most obvious difference is that the output of CAD is drawings, lines on paper. In fact many CAD standards did little no more than describe lines. Layers names like <b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">5_PEN</span></b>.<br />
<br />
With BIM you are dealing with objects, virtual objects that represent things that exist in the real world. When you model a wall you are creating an object that has (in Revit) upwards of 24 different bits of information, or parameters (in Revit speak).<br />
In CAD you might have three; colour, pen weight and line pattern. Enhancements like multi-lines might increase this by 3 more by adding thickness dimensions, but still no-where near the number BIM encompasses.<br />
<br />
In reality correct naming was not that critical for CAD. If a layer (or Level in Bentley) was named <b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">WALL_BRICK</span></b> in one CAD file and <b><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">BRICK_WALL</span></b> in another, as long as they had similar line thicknesses and patterns the drawings produced looked the same.<br />
<br />
In BIM if you have two wall definitions with different names that are actually the same wall (i.e. have identical parameters) not only will your schedules be misleading (i.e. identical walls with different codes), if there is a change made to one and not the other that change won't propagate across the project (e.g. MR plasterboard changed to Fibre Cement sheet).<br />
The effect is the BIM model becomes unreliable.<br />
<br />
<h3>
THE DOS LEGACY</h3>
CAD software started to be used back in the days of DOS (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS" target="_blank">Disk Operating System</a>). This was a text based language developed in the early 1980s when computers had very little memory. So little the length of filenames had to be restricted to 8 characters. And even then only uppercase letters (A-Z), numbers (0-9), and the underscore (_). This was because other 'punctuation characters' (including spaces) were used by DOS for programming.<br />
Although these restrictions only applied to filenames they were usually applied to internal naming as well (early AutoCAD had restrictions on layer name length, Microstation Levels only used numbers up to 63). This was due to a mixture of software creating files hidden from users, internal memory constrictions, or just habit on the part of software coders.<br />
<br />
It wasn't until the introduction of Windows NT & 95 (Apple always had fewer restrictions) these restrictions started to relax. Dashes (-) became permissible, the file name length increased to 31 characters, lowercase was displayed.<br />
Now most punctuation characters are allowed, (only <b> \ / ? : * " > <</b> | can't be used), and restriction on length is 260 characters.<br />
<br />
Many CAD standards still used today were originally created back in the days of DOS, when CAD naming schemas obsessed with the number of characters and only allowed letters, numbers and underscores.<br />
Even today many IT and CAD managers still insist these old DOS restrictions be maintained, because back in 1998 they had an incident where it mattered. When pressed their best reason is do it "just in case".<br />
Indeed there is still software around where it matters, but I find if this is the case invariably there are other reasons not use it (I tried an accounting package with these restrictions but stopped using it because it was like using software from 1998). To me it is an indicator of software which is ancient, or considers coding more important than usability.<br />
<br />
In 2014 there is no practical reason to restrict naming schemas to suit computers from 20 years ago.<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT MAKES A GOOD NAMING SCHEMA</h3>
Apply these simple principals.<br />
<h4>
UNDERSTANDABLE</h4>
The most important criteria for a naming schema is that it is understandable by everyone who will interact with it.<br />
This is not as onerous as you think, as mentioned above only BIM authors make use of names so this cuts down the audience considerably.<br />
There are many ways to make a naming schema understandable. There is really no one size fits all. What works in one office may not work in another. Architects respond differently to engineers, a design office will respond differently to a documentation workhouse.<br />
<br />
How do you make a naming schema understandable?<br />
<ul>
<li>Be literal:<br />call 13mm plasterboard, for example, <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>plasterbd13</i></span> not <span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">P01</span> or <span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">L13</span>.</li>
<li>Be consistent:<br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> brick110</i></span> and <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>plasterbd13</i></span> <br /> not<br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>110brick</i></span> and <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>plasterbd13</i></span>.</li>
<li>Use punctuation that is meaningful:<br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> brick110 / stud92 , insul50 / plasterbrdMR13 + tiles</i></span> <br /> not<br /> <span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">brick110_stud92_plasterbrdMR13_insul50_tiles</span></li>
<li>Manage the unmanaged:<br /><i>Use a prefix and name structure to identify objects that are managed.</i><br />For example:<br />- prefix material names to separate them from rubbish that comes in with imported files:<br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>.plasterbd</i></span><br />- name things that are standard differently:<br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>2.5 text </i></span> is standard;<br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Black 2.5 bold </i></span> is not standard.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
COMPREHENSIVE</h4>
Naming schemas need to be capable of naming absolutely every possibility for objects they are applied to.<br />
If they don't how do your users name something the naming schema doesn't account for? They make it up, and each one will make it up in their own unique way. To say something is hardly ever used is not a solution, it is a cop-out, what I call an excuse, not a reason.<br />
This doesn't mean a naming schema has to be ridiculously long. By utilizing meaningful punctuation fields of information can be optional - left out if not relevant. If necessary the schema defines what the value is by default, and how it is added to the name if it is not the default.<br />
<ul>
<li>Define a name schema to include all variances that are possible, not just those that are probable:<br /><i>In Revit look at all the Type parameters of the object being named and make sure the ones that will cause a new type to be created has a place within the name structure.</i></li>
<li>Use optional fields:<br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> brick110 / stud92 / plasterbrdMR13</i></span> <br /> can be extended to <br /><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i> brick110 /stud92 , insul50 / plasterbrdMR13 + tiles</i></span></li>
<li>Assume default values:<br />walls are internal unless nominated otherwise,<br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>-/block140/-</i></span> is interior wall;<br /> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>-/block140/-.e</i></span> is exterior wall</li>
</ul>
<h4>
WORKABLE</h4>
There is no point creating a fabulous naming schema if no-one uses it, or uses it properly. It has to work in practice.<br />
<br />
It is a trap to think because you have a captive audience in your office you can rely on training to enforce a naming schema.<br />
The reality is Architects and engineers, the BIM authors, don't care about naming schemas. Nor should they be expected to. They are hired to provide their professional skills in designing a building. And that is what they want to do, not obsess over how they name things.<br />
People new to the office, or project, also need to be considered. No boss wants their highly paid engineers spending hours learning naming schemas, they want them producing billable work.<br />
<br />
And relying on training will only be effective if the naming schema actually works. An all too common assumption is that if only everyone used it properly there would be no problems. Whether it does what it needs to do is never challenged.<br />
<br />
How to make a naming schema work:<br />
<ul>
<li>Set general rules for name creation rather than a rigid rules:<br />names follow<i> major-medius-minor</i> rule rather than <span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">3 uppercase letters, underscore, 4 lowercase characters, underscore, 2 numbers</span>.</li>
<li>Create a naming structure rather than a rigid standard:<br />allow 13mm plasterboard to be named <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>plasterboard13</i></span>, <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>plasterbd13</i></span> or <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>pb13</i></span>, not just <span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">PB13</span>.</li>
<li>Document naming schemas:<br /><i>don't rely on people memorizing what they learnt at a training session; provide examples, cheat sheets, easily update-able and searchable documentation (i.e. web manuals or wiki)</i></li>
<li>Adjust naming schemas to suit particular projects:<br /><i>work with project teams to get a schema they are comfortable with.</i></li>
<li>Investigate how people use naming schemas:<br /><i>instead of forcing recalcitrant users into training ask them what they would change to make it useful to them.</i></li>
<li>Review naming schemas in the light of experience:<br /><i>don't be afraid to make changes when it is warranted.</i></li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
As an example of making changes to suit users, I recently added tag codes to the front of wall and material names.<br />
e.g.<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>brick110 / stud92 / plasterbrdMR13</i></span> <br />
became <br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>W.B201_brick110 / stud92 / plasterbrdMR13</i></span><br />
<br />
To me this is poor practice as codes are unique to a particular project, and there is an overhead in keeping the names matching the code parameter (in our case Type Mark).<br />
But users felt more confident selecting items clearly identified with the code used in tags. (Wall types not yet assigned a code were named: <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>W.Bxxx_...</i></span>.).<br />
From a purely data management view not ideal, but if it helps people do what they need to do so be it.<br />
<br />
<br />
The bottom line is BIM standards, including naming schemas, should never be considered set in concrete. BIM software development is fast moving and standards need to move with them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
At the end of the day naming schemas, and office BIM standards in general are for humans, the users of BIM software, not the software itself, the IT system or those that run it.<br />
When dealing with humans a rigid purely logical approach is rarely successful. What is called for is '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic" target="_blank">fuzzy logic</a>' (to use a software term); simple rules that have a degree of flexibility.<br />
<br />
Despite my examples above, (which are not from a real naming schema), I have deliberately not been specific because I don't believe there is such a thing as the perfect schema. To be practical a naming schema has to suit the people who work with it, so they (or someone in direct contact with them) need to be the ones who work it out.<br />
What I have tried to do is reveal some of the guiding principles behind a workable naming schema.<br />
<br />
<br />
Creating BIM standards is a hard and thankless task. You will never satisfy everyone, you will never achieve the perfect standard, and the job is never completely finished. But there are benefits to even partially successful standards. It is worth the effort.<br />
<br />
<br />
There will always be resistance to change, but don't accept excuses masquerading as reasons:<br />
<ul>
<li>I don't like it:<br />- it is not an aesthetic decision so who cares what you think.</li>
<li>We have always done it that way:<br />- if that was the case we would still be drawing on linen with quills.</li>
<li>People are already familiar with the current system:<br />- not relevant if the current system is unsuitable for BIM.</li>
<li>It works now so why change it:<br />- does it? really? let me show you otherwise . . .</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
</div>
<table bgcolor="#FEFCFF" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="float: left; margin: 1em;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><a href="http://annabuckley.com/" target="_blank"><img align="middle" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjJqJ_acgARsynyyydfm3gFejojcIchqBi3GEouMr45TaUmURQa56uYfE-RVlRMiWpEpp9I0rcBHAzNeNIe6_Cr8MCY-U5sC6DvLhNudrMnQn44rklgHHRZCF10tkC11i3ejAJj-ZBIEct/s1600/Book+1+Cover075px.png" /></a> </td><td><br /></td>
<td><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Bored with BIM?</b><br /><i>Need a present for that special woman in your life?</i>
<br />The Lost Woman series follows the adventures of Christina as she makes her way through a world of design, fashion, new media and ... men.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The complete series, "<i>AWAKENING the lost woman</i>", "<i>CAPTURING the lost woman</i>" & "<i>FINDING the lost woman</i>" is available now on
<a href="http://amazon.com/author/annabuckley" target="_blank">Amazon</a>,
<a href="http://store.kobobooks.com/en-US/Search?query=Anna%20Buckley&fcsearchfield=Author" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Kobo</a>,
<a href="https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Anna_Buckley_Awakening_the_lost_woman?id=H4RjAwAAQBAJ" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Google Books</a>, <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/anna-buckley?store=book&keyword=anna+buckley" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Barnes & Noble</a>
and iBooks.
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-46720468689210945342014-06-02T20:50:00.000+10:002014-06-07T10:56:03.196+10:00BIM is not so Real after allIn my last post, <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/keep-your-bim-model-real.html" target="_blank">Keep your BIM Model Real</a>, I explored the issue of relating a BIM model to the real world. One of my conclusions was to "<i>actively include tolerances in our BIM Models</i>".<br />
<br />
I was wrong.<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHY IT IS WRONG</h3>
Firstly there are technical reasons 'padding' quantities is bad practice. In my previous post I tried to show that it didn't matter for quantity take-off. But accurate quantities are important for other purposes as well.<br />
As Tim Froise pointed out in an LinkedIn discussion:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
' <i>But there are occasions where the volume is important. If the wall component is considered for its U-value, there is an additional 36% of plasterboard material, which is significant.</i> ' </blockquote>
He also points out it will affect acoustic and thermal mass calculations.<br />
<br />
Indeed he is right. Materials in Revit have values assigned to them that can be used for these types of calculations.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN6Cjid03b6mL8sTwuF5qt4d8Vc62Y188samEmYjHB9A3bQ1E2ytfvsGYJkn0jTlj0mTqeTA7Ri7G5lWqquD2XJnTiWBzD99eNLNLLxAmLyHO0wihBzFjMkYuu2BzGwsX5DFxT7lx-8H98/s1600/MaterialProperties01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN6Cjid03b6mL8sTwuF5qt4d8Vc62Y188samEmYjHB9A3bQ1E2ytfvsGYJkn0jTlj0mTqeTA7Ri7G5lWqquD2XJnTiWBzD99eNLNLLxAmLyHO0wihBzFjMkYuu2BzGwsX5DFxT7lx-8H98/s1600/MaterialProperties01.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
And materials with padded thicknesses make a difference.
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ1S7HUq_13YiNjubTPFM7uIfd0E4wURxiyNiwEV8QGuhatJ6pOisTWKxd235qbsJCyCHtZ9zSaKimMd1IzDrzrEyICa03-kzOoFUna2GeJKX_WI1Y1fKKdX5Vo3cz3cHwPFv2BlPQVCAY/s1600/MaterialProperties0203.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ1S7HUq_13YiNjubTPFM7uIfd0E4wURxiyNiwEV8QGuhatJ6pOisTWKxd235qbsJCyCHtZ9zSaKimMd1IzDrzrEyICa03-kzOoFUna2GeJKX_WI1Y1fKKdX5Vo3cz3cHwPFv2BlPQVCAY/s1600/MaterialProperties0203.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I can't justify rationalising away all these valid uses for accurate data.<br />
<br />
But perhaps the most pertinent comments were about why I though it OK to mess with the BIM model for my own purposes.<br />
From Tim McDougald:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
' <i>I watched this argument at my old firm between two different Architects within the same building. One wanted everything drawn "real" and the other rounded everything off.</i> ' </blockquote>
I recognised myself as one of those architects. And it is true, there is no consensus between architects (which is why I started analysing this issue).<br />
The view held depends on what particular problems an architect is grappling with. For example at design stage the aim is to please the client, so architects tend to minimize construction allowances so higher usable and lettable areas can be achieved. During documentation the aim is constructability, construction allowances have to be found to ensure what has been designed can be achieved in the real world.<br />
But this has nothing to do with the BIM model. It has to do with the competencies of the architects involved.<br />
<br />
Embedding the solution into the BIM model risks reducing the designer's obligation to directly deal with their professional responsibilities. Architects who think their BIM model will 'take care' of constructability will feel confident they can ignore construction limitations. Engineers who let their software come up with solutions don't feel the need to explore alternatives.<br />
<br />
And this is what my last post attempted to do. Shift architect's responsibility to consider constructability on to the BIM Model.<br />
<br />
Another comment, this time from David Conant:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'<i> I think the pressure to make a 114 wall at 120 is really another manifestation of "don't make me change the way I do things" without questioning why</i>. '</blockquote>
The error I made is all too common. An approach that tries to embed too much into BIM models. To use them as much as possible to solve problems we encounter, ignoring how this may effect others using the model.<br />
What we need to appreciate is that there are limits to what a BIM model (and hence BIM processes) can do, and to modify our expectations accordingly.<br />
<br />
<h3>
WHAT CAN A BIM MODEL DO?</h3>
On "questioning why", as David suggested, I recognised the traditional purpose of dimensioning is to provide the contractor with clear instructions, or requirements, of where things are located. By rounding dimensions we are attempting to make it easier for them through expressing requirements in a clearer manner.<br />
<br />
This is because in traditional construction documents the purpose is to provide the contractor with sufficient information to fulfil requirements that designers (i.e. architects and engineers) identify.<br />
This often leads to a battle between contractors and designers, where designers try to provide as little information as possible, and contractors demand specific 'how to' instructions. The architect provides a note - "fix securely", the contractor wants a drawing showing the location of every screw.<br />
<br />
Now using BIM doesn't (or hasn't yet) overcome this. Contractors still want more in the model than designers think is necessary or reasonable (and to be honest practical). On the other hand Architects, and especially engineers, don't see why they need to model enough to create a coherent virtual building.<br />
<br />
But the significant point here is the different ways traditional documents and BIM communicate information.<br />
As explained above traditional documents attempt to explain what the requirements are. Those who receive them expect those documents to directly communicate requirements without interpretation.<br />
A BIM model is a facsimile of requirements. It is a representation of the final product of those requirements (i.e. a virtual model). And as such can only every reflects what the real world requirements are, it does not specifically spell them out.<br />
<br />
For example traditional documents might have all fire rated compartments identified on drawings with a heavy dashed line. This directly tells the contractor where fire compartments are located, and by inference which walls and doors have to be fire rated.<br />
In a BIM model those walls have their materials and construction modelled as virtual walls and doors that meet fire rated performance requirements, they may even have data associated with them stating their required fire rating. But it will be up to the contractor to extract information from the model that identifies their location, and hence extent of fire compartments (contractors need to know this because it is not just materials that create fire isolation, it is also the way they are put together).<br />
<br />
<h3>
TAKING RESPONSIBILITY</h3>
So to go back to my dimensioning example.<br />
So yes, architects should represent walls correctly without padding, and not worry about dimensions that are unobtainable in the real world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyF0ZH1WDXZWkuIQQb_RSr_eg4UCUPQSrv0nLVTgckCsj6Ix-X6QMLU2ckhyphenhyphenUm-8DiM0kKTpvRzUZ4H6aQqQQWof6c-1IKQAiETxqIKfcYVdpQTkJ3MoSnwQao1N0Jupl523GQy1m4tDLv/s1600/DimWallPadded01a.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyF0ZH1WDXZWkuIQQb_RSr_eg4UCUPQSrv0nLVTgckCsj6Ix-X6QMLU2ckhyphenhyphenUm-8DiM0kKTpvRzUZ4H6aQqQQWof6c-1IKQAiETxqIKfcYVdpQTkJ3MoSnwQao1N0Jupl523GQy1m4tDLv/s1600/DimWallPadded01a.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The consequence of this is that dimensions will not be as clear and instructive as found in traditional documents. The contractor will not be able to merely read off dimensions and use them directly, dimensions will have to be interpreted to make them useful on site, in the real world.<br />
<br />
I see this as another consequence of utilizing BIM, an example of roles and responsibilities changing. Is it a bad consequence? I think not. The contractor is best placed to make decisions about what is best on site. And honestly, if architects were any good at it I wouldn't be spending so much time trying to find a fix for it!<br />
<br />
The bigger picture here is that a BIM model - a virtual building - does not communicate information in the same way traditional documents do.<br />
Traditional documents are designed to spoon feed relevant information, to highlight what is critical and what is not. BIM models just provide information. True, much more information, but not all of it is relevant to a particular recipient. It is the recipient's responsibility to extract the information they require, and if necessary manipulate it to make it useful.<br />
<br />
For contractors no more "we didn't do it because you didn't specifically tell us to", with BIM it is "you should have identified the need from the model", (although "we didn't do it because it wasn't in the model" is still fair enough).<br />
<br />
I've used contractors as an example, but the same applies right across all AECO processes. We all need to recognise that BIM is not the same as traditional delivery, and that it does not provide information in the same manner.<br />
<br />
<h3>
THE PRACTICAL REALITY</h3>
Great, glad we got that sorted. But what does that mean, how should this insight effect what we do now?<br />
<br />
As I have written before in my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/can-bim-alone-be-used-for-construction.html" target="_blank">Can BIM alone be used for Construction</a>, there is currently no practical way to deliver a project purely using BIM. We are in transition. We use BIM where we can but are still expected (and contractually required) to provide traditional documents.<br />
<br />
This is where I came unstuck with dimensioning. Traditional documentation calls for rounded, padded dimensions. But we are using BIM software, and it is not designed to do this (nor should it be).<br />
So on the one hand I'm trying to fulfil my contractual obligations, on the other trying to produce good quality BIM, both to help my processes and for others to utilize.<br />
<br />
What is the solution? All I can think of is a hybrid.<br />
Use real thicknesses and unapologetic actual dimensions, then add 'clear' or 'min./max.' dimensions where there are critical requirements to be met.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj76_KVMFjMd2GbnA927jOnvv4PnskL-uuA9okbaOEsUlzqpz-c9cX8fQcV2Qdz3nV2CDWM6f8bWDa4Wk22GkKog73mNLYo_EuLOx7IF_Vy8IMBtkXnz-0-FPLWSXFZIt2KWP2zigLdCOUh/s1600/DimWallPadded02b.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj76_KVMFjMd2GbnA927jOnvv4PnskL-uuA9okbaOEsUlzqpz-c9cX8fQcV2Qdz3nV2CDWM6f8bWDa4Wk22GkKog73mNLYo_EuLOx7IF_Vy8IMBtkXnz-0-FPLWSXFZIt2KWP2zigLdCOUh/s1600/DimWallPadded02b.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
If you really feel the need to pad walls do it be adding a 'tolerance' layer.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcyHieLYeknq0RaaSJaVfH4exknbBCrl3fF4GYuDBPLi1tXDDcuBdOiBMUOA7YH_hlylG9hxyLMA9ch8z2LDOMKa4IIz-is8Vx55wWdxcSVwNL3oltpBDw6XNskZm7zt-XZ8Esy3ItLrsl/s1600/WallTol125w.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcyHieLYeknq0RaaSJaVfH4exknbBCrl3fF4GYuDBPLi1tXDDcuBdOiBMUOA7YH_hlylG9hxyLMA9ch8z2LDOMKa4IIz-is8Vx55wWdxcSVwNL3oltpBDw6XNskZm7zt-XZ8Esy3ItLrsl/s1600/WallTol125w.png" height="281" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
But there is nothing preventing walls used at early design stages, when their construction is unknown or undecided, from being thick enough to incorporate tolerances.<br />
For example use 150mm or 130mm for generic internal walls instead of 100mm. This is where BIM helps, it is a trivial exercise (at least in Revit) to change walls from one type to another.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN9rEMWxLzDBsuWOXf-e5sm8GwvuKSqrHsQ6stgiN-Jjz-SRDs9UmHQo4wPEX9onQWnnJoBNGRdfcatukZMgsq7AYotOmLHOhyeZBopEm5BEqfqI2sLW63nhTbGXlBgaGlmREFxwc2vils/s1600/DimWallPadded03.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN9rEMWxLzDBsuWOXf-e5sm8GwvuKSqrHsQ6stgiN-Jjz-SRDs9UmHQo4wPEX9onQWnnJoBNGRdfcatukZMgsq7AYotOmLHOhyeZBopEm5BEqfqI2sLW63nhTbGXlBgaGlmREFxwc2vils/s1600/DimWallPadded03.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
'Why bother' you might ask. If we are not doing real BIM why try and do things in a BIM like manner?<br />
<br />
The reality is BIM is not an all or nothing proposition. A lot of money is always at stake on a building project, involving lots of people with differing views. The risks are enormous, so BIM will be used where there are perceived benefits and low risk, BIM by itself will never be the most important driver.<br />
<br />
We users of BIM know its benefits, but must be prepared to demonstrate them. And the best way to do that is to be prepared. To embed BIM practices in what we do even when we don't need to. And where necessary resist following traditional practices where they conflict with good BIM practice.<br />
<br />
<br />
A BIM model is not, and can never be, 'Real'. It is repository of data that creates a facsimile of the real world. It is up to us, the creators and users of that BIM model, to use that facsimile to inform what we humans need to know to create the real thing, in the real world.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table bgcolor="#FEFCFF" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="float: left; margin: 1em; text-align: left;">
<tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://annabuckley.com/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjJqJ_acgARsynyyydfm3gFejojcIchqBi3GEouMr45TaUmURQa56uYfE-RVlRMiWpEpp9I0rcBHAzNeNIe6_Cr8MCY-U5sC6DvLhNudrMnQn44rklgHHRZCF10tkC11i3ejAJj-ZBIEct/s1600/Book+1+Cover075px.png" /> </a>
</td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Bored with BIM?</b><br />
<i>Need a present for that special woman in your life?</i><br />
The Lost Woman series follows the adventures of Christina as she makes her way through a world of design, fashion, new media and ... men.<br />
Book one of the series, "<i>Awakening the lost woman</i>", is available now on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Awakening-lost-woman-Anna-Buckley-ebook/dp/B00JT3DRU4/" target="_blank">Amazon</a>, <a href="https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Anna_Buckley_Awakening_the_lost_woman?id=H4RjAwAAQBAJ" target="_blank">Google Books</a>, <a href="http://store.kobobooks.com/en-US/ebook/awakening-the-lost-woman" target="_blank">Kobo</a> and iBooks.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-1513403848373600562014-04-03T17:32:00.002+11:002014-04-03T17:32:59.805+11:00Keep your BIM Model RealMany of us only work in the world of our BIM models. The closest we get to something real is the drawings and schedules produced by our BIM software (even then we may never see them as physical objects, document issues are often via PDF or DWF).<br />
<br />
Often we forget what we are doing is for the real world. That we are showing real people using real materials and real tools what we want built.<br />
<br />
Another thing we tend to forget is that what we produce is going to be used by different people for different purposes.<br />
An architect may only think his work is for showing what he has designed will look like, an engineer to explain the rationale of his solution. Sure, they might provide more information they think others will use, but not a lot of thought goes into it.<br />
<br />
Conversely, those that use what has been produced don't understand why it doesn't explicitly cater for all their requirements.<br />
<br />
None of these issues can be completely resolved. BIM software will never exactly match reality, authors will always privilege their own requirements, and a BIM model will continue to be used by multiple people for multiple purposes.<br />
<br />
If it is always going to be a compromise what are the practical things we can do to address these issues?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
An Example - WALLS</h3>
Within a BIM model walls have a number of purposes:<br />
<h4>
show what is to be built </h4>
Walls are made from materials, with certain properties. There is an expectation there will be enough information to build them, that what walls are made from is identified, as is the order they are placed.<br />
<h4>
locate to be built </h4>
Walls represent real objects that real people have to build. They need to know where it is located, with sufficient tolerance to make it humanly achievable.<br />
<h4>
boundary for analysis</h4>
Walls can be used as boundary elements for various software analysis. But each analysis will have different expectations. Not every wall may be required, the boundary may be at the edge of a wall or somewhere within it, particular information about what the wall is made from, or how it behaves, may be expected.<br />
<h4>
measure quantities </h4>
Walls can be measured for costing and procurement purposes. Accurate area and volumetric information is expected.<br />
<h4>
construction schedule</h4>
Walls can be made up of different materials that are placed at different times. The expectation is that these materials can be separately allocated to different milestones.<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't intend to go through every issue, instead I'll use accuracy as an example.<br />
What are the expectations in terms of accuracy? It is not a two way street however, for example the cost estimator does not model walls, the architect does. So for the architect, what level of accuracy is reasonable?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
TOLERANCES</h3>
We all understand a real person in the real world can not be as accurate a a computer. Let's put some numbers on that.<br />
<br />
In our BIM software we can be precise up to 16 decimal places. This is often important to our software, but in the real (metric - millimetre) world that is accuracy to 0.1 femtometres, which is narrower than a proton (1.6 to 1.7 femtometres). If the unit is feet it becomes 30.48 femtometres, which is still smaller than the width of a hydrogen atom.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the real world standards have been set to define what is reasonable. Some examples:<br />
<br />
From the U.S. "Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys 2011":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The maximum allowable Relative Positional Precision for an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey is 2 cm (0.07 feet) plus 50 parts per million".</blockquote>
So the minimum degree of accuracy expected for land titles is 20mm.<br />
<br />
<br />
From the <a href="http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/6759/S_T_GUIDE_07.pdf" target="_blank">Guide to Standards & Tolerances</a>, published by the Australian Victorian Building Commission:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Departures from documented external dimensions of buildings are defects if they exceed L/200 where L is the documented overall length of wall, or 5mm, whichever is greater."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Departures from documented dimensions of service rooms and areas are defects if they exceed L/200 or 5mm, whichever is greater."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Departures from documented dimensions of heights of building elements such as beams and posts are defects if they exceed L/200 or 5mm, whichever is greater."</blockquote>
i.e. 5mm per 1000mm (3/16" per 3' 3 1/2")<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Departures from documented dimensions of habitable rooms and areas are defects if they exceed L/100 or 5mm, whichever is greater."</blockquote>
i.e. 5mm per 500mm (3/16" per 1' 8")<br />
<br />
Some allowable inaccuracies are quite large:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Finished floor levels are defective where they depart from documented RL or FFL by more than 40mm" or depart from floors of the same level."</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And there are more for specific materials:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYJZocqx6PjLmb0Vhgtvf9c26ee33u4Hx42HTCOGMsk_d8Ny9dIkNkl8blv8g8v9mX4nvEo9DfGn_-ZHZAEMnpAcvrXhH7n2cIhTQAPYo3d0BRwcY6IODbZpaHEul7z9PIcjAQb0GInAjU/s1600/MasonaryTolerances.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYJZocqx6PjLmb0Vhgtvf9c26ee33u4Hx42HTCOGMsk_d8Ny9dIkNkl8blv8g8v9mX4nvEo9DfGn_-ZHZAEMnpAcvrXhH7n2cIhTQAPYo3d0BRwcY6IODbZpaHEul7z9PIcjAQb0GInAjU/s1600/MasonaryTolerances.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
From this it appears it is generally considered unrealistic to expect on-site measurements of less than to the nearest 5mm (3/16 inch).<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
MODELLING WALLS</h3>
Let's go back to our wall example.<br />
<br />
A typical (metric) wall is two layers of plasterboard either side of a structural stud.<br />
13 plasterboard + 92 steel stud + 13mm plasterboard, total thickness 118mm.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfCYTh2KvOxujRjyL-MbVy2IHjlY5IxxaHZ83FuLwkVfJst1lDrOUxWtzesLtoFvfg9kSz5Exri412z4QYEBhh-o3HL4Ck2UwFWsDsYf8p2Rp7I85uXgBGdGwxDAs14bd-3VyDvl7qaIXu/s1600/Wall118w.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfCYTh2KvOxujRjyL-MbVy2IHjlY5IxxaHZ83FuLwkVfJst1lDrOUxWtzesLtoFvfg9kSz5Exri412z4QYEBhh-o3HL4Ck2UwFWsDsYf8p2Rp7I85uXgBGdGwxDAs14bd-3VyDvl7qaIXu/s1600/Wall118w.png" height="253" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
But is the built wall going to be exactly 118mm thick everywhere? Of course not.<br />
For a start it will thicker wherever there is a joint.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0OwSa5btJUB2Tk4vKqScZ8txClt1wJISZRmBwv_HkFzDTr1cSCnI-HBYMk2q3JwFEHa-92VGJ9DqYDWVz6MNMT3fK0qKdUq_lyEDtpaoeHnh8HWMan-CGjBUhzd-4ZSGOHoFq9ntmx8H-/s1600/plasterbdJoint.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0OwSa5btJUB2Tk4vKqScZ8txClt1wJISZRmBwv_HkFzDTr1cSCnI-HBYMk2q3JwFEHa-92VGJ9DqYDWVz6MNMT3fK0qKdUq_lyEDtpaoeHnh8HWMan-CGjBUhzd-4ZSGOHoFq9ntmx8H-/s1600/plasterbdJoint.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
It will also be thicker in corners (both internal and external), which like joints are also stopped up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVLRnptXuINwqBJJVTk2hZDQWb4lVXgfZQz-9nxdxVEjSqoUGlHQu7X-ICoF9AhC1s4mXRZduF4xS6wp8r59-tq8wFAJ6p7evo_RvtqDWgRAUzVqCaqLmD9GdWR-Z0su2LfNCVgDMQmWE3/s1600/plasterbdJoint02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVLRnptXuINwqBJJVTk2hZDQWb4lVXgfZQz-9nxdxVEjSqoUGlHQu7X-ICoF9AhC1s4mXRZduF4xS6wp8r59-tq8wFAJ6p7evo_RvtqDWgRAUzVqCaqLmD9GdWR-Z0su2LfNCVgDMQmWE3/s1600/plasterbdJoint02.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
And this is before we factor in the imprecision of on-site measuring.<br />
<br />
If the architect is to achieve required minimum clearances then this needs to be taken into account.<br />
You might rationalize that surely a code checker won't worry about a few millimetres. But no-one can take the risk. I have seen a building inspector insist walls tiles be removed from a toilet wall because the width he measured was slightly less than the required 900mm. There was also a court case here in Australia where the architect, building surveyor and contractor were found culpable for a balustrade 20mm less than code height (someone slid down the balustrade and fell, resulting in brain damage. Apparently, according to the court, if it was 20mm higher it wouldn't have happened).<br />
<br />
What about rounding? We are all guilty of using dimensions that round to the nearest 5mm, or (gasp) 10mm.<br />
The problem is Revit doesn't always round up. We always want to ensure minimum dimensions are met, we are not so worried about maximums being exceeded, so we need to round up.<br />
<br />
Depending on the actual dimension, Revit may round up or down.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfvjqHwsJ4Y5LXTtORN_PseNNF63p0W7gmP4LLFWvkoKYRFwFN2YBsiLEZakw5IAQKoJHFENNTbXTrNX7m4-GXdGz1mPCF7XccyJUhkSHxOm13Zn4ivuBWpwXJnQafFRyfvvs34fNelyq3/s1600/DimensionRoundingErrors03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfvjqHwsJ4Y5LXTtORN_PseNNF63p0W7gmP4LLFWvkoKYRFwFN2YBsiLEZakw5IAQKoJHFENNTbXTrNX7m4-GXdGz1mPCF7XccyJUhkSHxOm13Zn4ivuBWpwXJnQafFRyfvvs34fNelyq3/s1600/DimensionRoundingErrors03.png" height="308" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Also the 2 or 3mm rounding changes a dimension by may not be enough to account for construction tolerances. In-situ concrete requires quite large tolerances, 25mm (1 inch) is not uncommon.<br />
<br />
<br />
Rounding generally is not good practice. Rounding errors mount up, and you can end up in the embarrassing situation where your short dimensions don't add up to longer dimensions.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhepGgHtKAtP0lVlZcqdnm5NhYjJrA-34GZifPQy7TK5asJD9om0WuOYxn_2IARBQkk7P-2MSdi4-HESWwwF4OxFVfDujRsD5DwTLywMPubrnkmlSqATaBq2wkGoik8BGzei6AsrmbauTwi/s1600/DimesnionRoundingErrors01.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhepGgHtKAtP0lVlZcqdnm5NhYjJrA-34GZifPQy7TK5asJD9om0WuOYxn_2IARBQkk7P-2MSdi4-HESWwwF4OxFVfDujRsD5DwTLywMPubrnkmlSqATaBq2wkGoik8BGzei6AsrmbauTwi/s1600/DimesnionRoundingErrors01.png" height="278" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The correct way is to locate things ACCURATELY. If the end walls are supposed to be 600 apart, model them 600 apart. Objects should be modelled so they are increments of 5mm apart, then actual dimensions you have in your model will be achievable in the real world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn5CFxrjbgQPMM0LCvxU_LTHDkHNm3R-G3JitPtBeIto59u1fYE7CC5OsonKxoF8D4Fiv1I2HGj3d3jDyClJBearTIsldMlQpZyq3tTJQU48h64_ulHsUef7SNbXY1GQsZTVSaaELru3ua/s1600/DimesnionRoundingErrors02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn5CFxrjbgQPMM0LCvxU_LTHDkHNm3R-G3JitPtBeIto59u1fYE7CC5OsonKxoF8D4Fiv1I2HGj3d3jDyClJBearTIsldMlQpZyq3tTJQU48h64_ulHsUef7SNbXY1GQsZTVSaaELru3ua/s1600/DimesnionRoundingErrors02.png" height="276" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I know it is not always possible, but just because it can't be done all the time is no excuse to never do it.<br />
<br />
But I digress, back to our wall:<br />
<br />
Therefore to ensure minimum dimensions are at least achievable on-site we need to increase the width of the wall. Based on the 5mm minimum measurable rule that means a multiple of 5mm, remembering that you don't want possible mis-measures to be minus 5mm.<br />
<br />
So a 118mm wall becomes 120mm, (2mm tolerance) or to be safer 125mm (7mm tolerance).<br />
<br />
Now, according to the Guide to Standards & Tolerances:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Unless shown otherwise, dimensions shown on drawings for internal walls always refer to the structure's dimensions."</blockquote>
So we also want to rationalise the dimension of the structural steel stud.<br />
<br />
The wall we make in our BIM software becomes:<br />
17.5 plasterboard + 90 steel stud + 17.5mm plasterboard, total thickness 125mm.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIzOc9t4Nb20SZ6LpOrU-tVJFr62mcably2DtjHqysJf4Jhw_P8b3B2MmCTzfEljfOEN2BUv5Gaolt3dGf1-_31CLe6c9X_ET0sUDJBALJriiPrjQ2r481G-Bu2l4ZbBmFSUiaOe3tGB23/s1600/Wall125w.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIzOc9t4Nb20SZ6LpOrU-tVJFr62mcably2DtjHqysJf4Jhw_P8b3B2MmCTzfEljfOEN2BUv5Gaolt3dGf1-_31CLe6c9X_ET0sUDJBALJriiPrjQ2r481G-Bu2l4ZbBmFSUiaOe3tGB23/s1600/Wall125w.png" height="269" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Now it is true we could add another 'layer' into the wall for tolerance.<br />
13 plasterboard + 4.5 tolerance + 90 steel stud + 4.5 tolerance + 13mm plasterboard.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgeOxoMI7B-yzboBYVTO95Gv4NikYSkXlJVih45wAkPI84xY2wS7sgBYYjUWCBgtVWl6E0hzWYTYfnmfiIjxnaAwMSEP8wDuR-JWjtOwfTJzAdbxYI2fLV9PlAbhxS2FDKQT5v6neSdfdG/s1600/WallTol125w.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgeOxoMI7B-yzboBYVTO95Gv4NikYSkXlJVih45wAkPI84xY2wS7sgBYYjUWCBgtVWl6E0hzWYTYfnmfiIjxnaAwMSEP8wDuR-JWjtOwfTJzAdbxYI2fLV9PlAbhxS2FDKQT5v6neSdfdG/s1600/WallTol125w.png" height="281" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
But this adds another line into the graphic representation of the wall.<br />
Not only is this confusing to anyone looking at the drawing (and a potential recurring RFI topic), it adds additional complexity to our BIM model. We already cope with large, slow files (in Revit that is), we don't need to make it worse.<br />
<br />
So the architect is happy. But what about others?<br />
<br />
When an estimator extracts quantities from the BIM model they are going to be wrong. But how wrong?<br />
<br />
If we take volume of plasterboard, every 100sqM of 13mm plasterboard has a volume of 1.3cuM, for 17.5mm it is 1.75cuM, a difference of 35%. Not insignificant.<br />
<br />
But something like plasterboard is measured by area, not volume. When measuring wall linings errors in area measurements will occur at corners and end walls.<br />
Looking at internal corners (there are more internal corners than external corners or ends walls in a building), there is an under-measure if walls are thicker.<br />
So 2 lots of 4.5mm will not be measured, and assuming 2.7m high walls, total area is 0.0243sqM.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN_JhYkpqgy2u32SWLS4Ls6YLgBHFBYUgF73vvA4hrWZNPQackU_0aO-ZJUFpC1xF7kQ4qUZIFsFOKEoa8Ddxi6WhDEO73qu0KoNG8kGrMsLt__Ls7Kf1uCZYHb2Jl82nXppHiDkoaxmIK/s1600/WallCornerInternal125w.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN_JhYkpqgy2u32SWLS4Ls6YLgBHFBYUgF73vvA4hrWZNPQackU_0aO-ZJUFpC1xF7kQ4qUZIFsFOKEoa8Ddxi6WhDEO73qu0KoNG8kGrMsLt__Ls7Kf1uCZYHb2Jl82nXppHiDkoaxmIK/s1600/WallCornerInternal125w.png" height="350" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Put another way there would need to be 41 internal corners to lose 1sqM of measured area, which is close to 10 rooms (4 corners per room). Say an average room is 3m x 3m, total wall area for 10 rooms is 324sqM. A loss of 1sqM equates to 0.3%. Which is insignificant.<br />
<br />
<br />
So while it can be quite dangerous to rely on volumes out of a BIM model, areas are not such a problem. Of course this is not the case for every material. Mass materials like concrete are usually safe (tolerance in concrete placement is accounted for in attached linings). Structural steel may be OK if realistic structural members are used (which generally happens if the structural engineer is the modeller).<br />
<br />
<br />
The take home point here is to not rely on thicknesses parameters to define what a material is. The above example has 13mm plasterboard, but when modelled at 17.5mm if its thickness is used to identify the type of plasterboard it could be mistaken for 16mm plasterboard, on the assumption a 1.5mm tolerance has been allowed for.<br />
<br />
There is another reason thickness is not a good indicator of what a material is. Walls in BIM software have homogeneous layers. When materials overlap there is no way to use their real thickness in the thickness parameter.<br />
The example below is a stud wall with insulation. The insulation is within the same 'layer' as the studs, but is not the same thickness as the studs. Therefore we have to nominate the stud layer thickness as 40mm, even though they are actually 92mm studs.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfVMnW3VeIXM_PgyQS7yO5rWjfhEmoDzFqI6CRaXqd8aE0_SLoKfoto0mhicv8h-Sma4t-AaHx1C2MPpgA5CF27TmzoOmSvUsfYvvuQFPym6AULQY011Zv1nQEz84LyVWaVwbAsXq-hTEO/s1600/WallInsul125w_500px.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfVMnW3VeIXM_PgyQS7yO5rWjfhEmoDzFqI6CRaXqd8aE0_SLoKfoto0mhicv8h-Sma4t-AaHx1C2MPpgA5CF27TmzoOmSvUsfYvvuQFPym6AULQY011Zv1nQEz84LyVWaVwbAsXq-hTEO/s1600/WallInsul125w_500px.png" height="246" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There are plenty of other parameters that can be used to define what a material is. It is not really necessary to use the thickness of a modelled material.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
CONCLUSION</h3>
I've only provided limited examples here, but these lessons apply right across all things in BIM models. The specifics may be different, but the issues are the same.<br />
<br />
Don't assume a BIM model has just been made for you and your purposes.<br />
<br />
In particular no-one should presume, or ask for, absolute accuracy from a BIM model.<br />
We should all expect, and actively include, tolerances in our BIM models.<br />
<br />
And most of all, don't forget why we do the work we do. To build things in the real world.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-5634578000895452752014-03-03T15:12:00.000+11:002014-03-03T15:12:45.707+11:00Schedules from BIM - why is it so hard?One of the uses of BIM, and increasingly a deliverable, is that what is on drawings matches what is in schedules.<br />
In theory it seems simple. If your BIM software is a database you just extract the data.<br />
But just because it is possible doesn't necessarily mean it is practical. Can the people who provide the content and manage schedules do it themselves or do they require specialize computer skills (or assistance from some-one with those skills) to do it?<br />
Do I fire the person who knows the difference between a passage and a privacy mortice latch, and replace them with some-one who knows the difference between a type and instance parameter?<br />
<br />
Schedule creation and management is poorly supported in BIM authoring softwares. It is as if they are an afterthought, something to assist drawing creation, rather than important documents in themselves.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why Schedules are Important in BIM</h3>
<h4>
Human Comprehension</h4>
I have previously written about BIM being a <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/can-bim-alone-be-used-for-construction.html" target="_blank">deliverable for construction</a> in its own right. The conclusion at the moment is it can't. Therefore we will continue to rely on drawings and schedules to communicate to other fellow humans. Even if you can export data from the BIM model to another database, at some point a human is going to have to read and understand that data.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Quality Assurance</h4>
Schedules are a great way to test data for errors. By manipulating how schedules are sorted and filtered obvious mistakes can be quickly identified.<br />
They can also help rationalise design decisions by exposing similarities (or unnecessary dissimilarities) between elements.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Consistency</h4>
But by far the most important reason to use BIM for schedules is consistency. By using data extracted from objects that appear on drawings there is going to be much greater consistency between drawings and schedules. This is often not appreciated as the inevitable errors in manually constructed schedules are discovered by some-one else further down the chain. As a young site engineer once told me, "BIM projects are great, I don't have to spend hours checking schedules match drawings, I just know they are going to be right".<br />
<br />
<h3>
How Schedules Work in BIM</h3>
Being of a practical mind I am going to provide a specific example - using Revit. Not because Revit is the worst offender (I suspect other softwares don't even have the same level of functionality), but because I use and know it, as do many other people in the AEC industry.<br />
<br />
In Revit you build a 3D model, then create views (plans, sections, elevations) of that model.<br />
Annotation (dimensions, notes, tags etc) are added over the top of these views to create actual drawings, which are then placed on drawing sheets.<br />
<br />
Schedules are another type of view of the model, except they just show data - values placed in parameters associated with objects in the model. This data may include dimensional information, location information, descriptive information, etc.<br />
You can control which data to show, in what order, and include headings, totals and rudimentary formatting.<br />
These schedules can then be placed on drawing sheets.<br />
<br />
Schedule data can also be shared with other softwares. There are three methods:<br />
<ol>
<li>Schedules can be exported as a text file in CSV format, (comma or tab delimited), that can be imported into other spreadsheet and database software.</li>
<li>By utilizing custom written software code data can be exported to proprietary formats like MS Excel, data can also be imported back into Revit from that proprietary software.</li>
<li>Revit can also be connected via custom written software code to an external database, where data can be synchronised between the two.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<h3>
Is Exporting the Solution? </h3>
Once a schedule is exported the link between drawings and the schedule is lost. Any changes made in the spreadsheet or database software will not be reflected in drawings. And any changes in drawings made after the export will not appear in the schedule.<br />
<br />
So what, you might say, that is how we have always done it. If someone makes a change they have to "talk" to others so they can do what is necessary to keep the two aligned (see my views on this in the comments of <a href="http://www.epicbim.com/2013/10/collaboration-vs-coordination-new-way.html" target="_blank">this epicBIM post</a>).<br />
But this where errors creep in. Even if this talking happens, there may be a misunderstanding, it may get forgotten, other priorities may mean it does not get done in a timely manner.<br />
In my experience all but the very small and simplest schedules done this way are full of errors.<br />
<br />
Which is why owners and contractors are increasingly insisting schedules be directly generated from BIM models.<br />
<br />
So exporting schedules is not a solution. Either the schedules need to be fully managed in the BIM authoring software, or there needs to be a two way link between the BIM software and the spreadsheet and /or database software.<br />
<br />
Both of these methods are possible. But how practical are they? Can ordinary architects, engineers, interior designers use them without requiring advanced computer skills?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Using Revit to Manage Schedules</h3>
As I said above I am using Revit as an example of BIM authoring software, I am not advocating it, nor am I inferring that it is better or worse than other BIM authoring softwares. But I believe it is necessary to be very specific to get a real understanding of the issues and problems involved.<br />
<br />
Revit schedules are 'live'. Change a parameter in an object (e.g. a door) and it will instantly change in any schedule that includes that parameter. Change it in any schedule and it will change the object. (Note that not all BIM software works this way).<br />
<br />
This is powerful - and dangerous. For example you can change the width of a door from within a schedule, which can lead to situations where the door no longer fits in the wall. Or change the size of a piece of equipment, which means it no longer fits in the room. As you can appreciate letting a schedule writer who is unfamiliar with how Revit works, or is not conversant with the building's design, loose in the BIM model can lead to havoc.<br />
<br />
On the flip side those modelling need to be aware that what they do effects schedules. If they place a new type of door that door has to have the same parameters as other doors in the project. And those parameters need to be filled in.<br />
<br />
Scheduling in BIM requires a more holistic approach by all members of the team.<br />
<br />
But back to my original point - how practical is it to produce schedules - using Revit as an example?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Problems Creating Schedules:</h4>
<b>Categories:</b><br />
Revit creates schedules based on categories - doors, windows, plumbing equipment, etc. (It is possible to create multi-category schedules, but they become complex to manage).<br />
This means it is important objects are created in the correct category. This is not generally a problem, except when you need to create a custom object for the in-built system 'families' (Revit's name for components).<br />
For example if you create a precast concrete panel as a stand alone object, you can't make it a 'Wall' category so it appears along with all the other walls in schedules.<br />
(There is an <a href="http://whatrevitwants.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/create-component-family-with-category.html" target="_blank">undocumented work around</a>. But it doesn't work for all categories).<br />
Also Revit's way of managing custom objects - 'in-place families', does not support all categories. So for example if you want to model a complicated stair rather than battle with either of Revit's inbuilt stair creators you can't schedule it along with other stairs.<br />
<br />
<b>Inconsistent Parameters:</b><br />
In schedules each column represents a parameter that appears in the objects you are scheduling. If all objects you are scheduling don't have the same parameters, or use different parameters for the same thing, there are going to be problems with your schedules.<br />
The user has to manage this for custom parameters ("Shared parameters" in Revit), but Revit itself is not consistent.<br />
In Revit there are two ways of creating stairs - by sketch or by component. Even though they are the same category as far as schedules are concerned, they don't have identical parameters, so you can't consistently schedule them together.<br />
<br />
<b>Doors:</b><br />
On large projects doors are traditionally numbered after the room they open into. This practice means doors can be easily added without disrupting the numbering system, and it is easy to identify where they are.<br />
Yet by default Revit numbers doors consecutively.<br />
In theory you could use the 'Room To' parameter as the door number, but you can not tag this parameter in a drawing, so in practice it doesn't work.<br />
All this makes creating door schedules unnecessarily complex - and non-BIM. As we have to resort to manually numbering doors after rooms the automatic link between drawings and schedule is lost.<br />
<br />
The situation is actually more complex, as the the way Revit handles 'Room To' and 'Room From' is not consistent or workable, particularly since the introduction of the 'Room Calculation point' entity.<br />
<br />
<b>Room Finishes Schedules:</b><br />
One of the most frustrating limitations is that we can not schedule room finishes in Revit. Although there are materials to all elements around a room, Revit can not gather this data into a schedule.<br />
There are <a href="http://www.arsoftwaresolutions.com.au/" target="_blank">addins</a> that attempt to do it, but really it should be native to all BIM authoring software.<br />
<br />
<b>Rooms in Linked Files:</b><br />
Revit allows items in linked files to be scheduled, which is great. <a href="http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Revit-Architecture/Scheduling-Furniture-in-Rooms-from-Linked-Files/td-p/3621844" target="_blank">But it will only report rooms in the current file</a>. So if you have furniture in a separate file (a common practice) which links in the building containing rooms, Revit won't report the room the furniture is in unless duplicates are made of all rooms and placed in the current file.<br />
Once again, very un-BIM like - separate duplicates of the same thing.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Problems Editing Schedules</h4>
If you are managing schedules in Revit you need to edit them. But really all you can do in Revit is change the value of a 'cell'. There are no functions that help navigate a schedule.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>You can't keep headings visible while scrolling through a schedule.</li>
<li>Rows aren't numbered or highlight-able.</li>
<li>Column widths of a schedule is the width printed - which means columns are often too narrow to read their contents in a schedule view.</li>
</ul>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHlWCIbhFeIu6Ifd4AwJLd_jtWN5K4QqCze-Cv1tGjrlcWEswjYI9evUMGvz0363Va7Isc4NsYY8huSBtxxuZzEOMkZ7jaWbEpTyBHvDSwleY0Oi6dKZJW7e0DPHGzOEgzKxuFruUrj2E3/s1600/Schedules_WhereAmI.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHlWCIbhFeIu6Ifd4AwJLd_jtWN5K4QqCze-Cv1tGjrlcWEswjYI9evUMGvz0363Va7Isc4NsYY8huSBtxxuZzEOMkZ7jaWbEpTyBHvDSwleY0Oi6dKZJW7e0DPHGzOEgzKxuFruUrj2E3/s1600/Schedules_WhereAmI.png" height="544" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Where am I?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPzWP9Wl8MHNZZa913iBM1IHNEBoAoyNqIU3SpBfx3-JfzqxjO4hD1Se5M7YPz75hsOk0yfivszATCvvSitRmFkulnw0h9rUBPkSr9ZxgtMWUrIGlDPUvSTd92ddP-YQMtqJ7Z70cojrVX/s1600/Schedules_CantRead.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPzWP9Wl8MHNZZa913iBM1IHNEBoAoyNqIU3SpBfx3-JfzqxjO4hD1Se5M7YPz75hsOk0yfivszATCvvSitRmFkulnw0h9rUBPkSr9ZxgtMWUrIGlDPUvSTd92ddP-YQMtqJ7Z70cojrVX/s1600/Schedules_CantRead.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">How can I edit it if I can't see it?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
This lack of function makes any but the smallest schedules near to impossible to work on in Revit.<br />
<br />
On large projects editing cells in a schedule can be very slow. Particularly materials. It seems Revit makes the changes after each cell edit. Maybe a 'Save' button would help.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Problems Printing Schedules:</h4>
The biggest issue is it is not possible to print a schedule across multiple sheets. There are <a href="http://blogs.rand.com/architectural/2011/04/splitting-a-schedule-across-sheets-in-revit.html" target="_blank">work arounds</a>, but they require messy set-ups and be actively managed to ensure schedules remain within sheet boundaries.<br />
<br />
There is also no in-built method to manage revisions to schedules (clouds don't work as schedules move as rows are added or deleted.). Again there is a work around - create a revision parameter and add it to schedules.<br />
<br />
<br />
So although it is possible to do most schedules within Revit, it is not necessarily that practical.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Exchanging Data or Linking Software to Manage Schedules</h3>
Another strategy is to exchange data with, or link, another software package to Revit.<br />
The advantage of this approach is software more suited to schedule editing and printing can be used. Software that is easier to use, and that schedule writers are familiar with.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Exchanging Data:</h4>
The most common methods with Revit is to use an addin that exports and imports to and from MS Excel. I have also seen one that does this <a href="http://revitaddons.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/free-schedules-importerexporter-add-in.html" target="_blank">with Google Docs</a> (I don't think it is available any longer - pity).<br />
Typically a schedule is exported to Excel, the Excel file is edited, then imported back into Revit where the changes are embedded into matching parameters.<br />
<br />
Sounds simple, and works well when what you are doing is simple. But it can quickly become a web of (sticky) spaghetti if care is not taken to be consistent when setting up schedules.<br />
<br />
This method can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Changes in Excel are just text or numbers, and may appear benign, but once put back into Revit they can change the model in ways unintended.<br />
<br />
Also keep in mind the process is controlled by addins and not Revit, you are relying on the skills of the addin software engineers to control this process. Some do it well, some are, well, just dangerous.<br />
For example how does it handle objects in groups?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNkE5Al08m-JrTp8_u-QQH1e3WrBxJwwPYyyC1nKdSDV7Q6vdwLhYGivPusrJAmvvVHd2KBqdf4bm6uhhI3_7z2ouWrK0uI6X8FWzikfdUAD1oF81YLM1gLF3nE60R-0dGZf5iM_0NcX1Y/s1600/Schedules_UngroupError.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNkE5Al08m-JrTp8_u-QQH1e3WrBxJwwPYyyC1nKdSDV7Q6vdwLhYGivPusrJAmvvVHd2KBqdf4bm6uhhI3_7z2ouWrK0uI6X8FWzikfdUAD1oF81YLM1gLF3nE60R-0dGZf5iM_0NcX1Y/s1600/Schedules_UngroupError.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Do I really want to destroy my groups?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
It is possible to establish a practical workflow as long as limitations are set on what can be done where. There needs to be restrictions on what can be changed in Excel, typically parameters that control geometric sizes of objects. For example the width and height of doors, (although door panel thickness and stile widths, being within the object, could be editable). Obviously no object can be added via Excel, that has to be done in Revit. Generally it is not possible to add columns in Excel that don't get written back to Revit, although there may be addins that allow this and manage that process.<br />
<br />
The main problem at the moment is that all the addins I can find overwrite previous Excel imports. What this means is that any formatting and re-arranging done in the Excel file gets overwritten. Sounds trivial to a software engineer but a deal breaker to an interior designer or architect (maybe not so much to engineers).<br />
<br />
The underlying disadvantage for exchanging data is it is not 'live' - maintaining the link between drawings and schedules is a manual process. This is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. Even with instant updating in Revit if you don't issue both drawings and schedules when either are changed the effect is the same - there is a mismatch in the information others have been given.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Linked Database:</h4>
It is possible to establish a 'live' link between the Revit model and a separate database. AutoDesk provide a free addin - <i>Revit DB Link</i> to achieve this (available via <a href="http://subscription.autodesk.com/" target="_blank">AutoDesk subscription</a>).<br />
<br />
But it is not a full solution. You need to set up the database you are linking to. Then you have to create an interface that humans can use to access and edit the data. This requires computer programmers (or removing some-one from billable work) to set up and manage. And on-going any change to layout or formatting has to be done by these experts (including changes beyond your control like software updates). These systems are so customised that if the person responsible leaves you may be left with a system no-one can use.<br />
<br />
So in theory it might sound like the ideal solution but in practice it rarely works out.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
A Note on External Software</h3>
Relying on external software is a valid strategy, but my concern is it removes responsibility from the BIM software houses to provide workable solutions. Instead of one group spending thousands of hours coming up with solutions many groups spend millions of hours on multiple solutions to the same problems.<br />
<br />
And then there is the quality of addins. I have lost count of the number of unusable addins I have tested.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbNjeavxfHAFiXABs7CbTXKF8wsKb4Qrwo17XofLt_NQ-0DXMjeDt55YWtSNqs1S_LL-Ley6L0cJ1GX7eHBdzgGYWiGbsvpKMXbBGKsKuoPNw2xFQ1EKdZF7hmW6TwXEklk4b5jRqRB58P/s1600/Schedules_AddinErrorImport.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbNjeavxfHAFiXABs7CbTXKF8wsKb4Qrwo17XofLt_NQ-0DXMjeDt55YWtSNqs1S_LL-Ley6L0cJ1GX7eHBdzgGYWiGbsvpKMXbBGKsKuoPNw2xFQ1EKdZF7hmW6TwXEklk4b5jRqRB58P/s1600/Schedules_AddinErrorImport.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Another failure</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If schedules from BIM models is a core requirement then the BIM software houses must provide a way to do it. A way that their ordinary users can manage on their own.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
If you can find the right addin (and this is a big 'if') exchanging data is probably currently the best solution. But don't expect it to be easy. Take the time to plan, test and validate it does what you need before implementation.<br />
<br />
At the moment it is unnecessarily difficult for the average architect, engineer or interior designer to create and manage schedules from their BIM software. Often the degree of this difficulty leads to errors in documentation that are equivalent, although different, to errors in documentation that occur when schedules are done manually.<br />
<br />
Despite what BIM Evangelists say, BIM is dependent on software, if we don't have the tools we can't do it.<br />
And if the expectation is that schedules are generated from BIM models, (which I believe is correct), then we need the software resources not to just make it possible, but to make it practical for the AEC professionals who create and mange them.<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-90255331582751675452014-01-25T12:44:00.001+11:002014-01-25T12:44:22.548+11:00Four Things BIM Doesn't DoIf we make the assumption that BIM contains all information about a project (or the 'index' for locating information), what is missing? What stops us being able to issue a BIM model without drawings? (a question I asked in my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/can-bim-alone-be-used-for-construction.html" target="_blank">Can BIM alone be used for Construction</a>.)<br />
<br />
I'm not just talking about lack of software functionality, but missing from current BIM processes.<br />
I don't believe these missing things are intractable, a reason to not use BIM. The problem is that they don't seem to be a part of BIM discussion, let alone being addressed. <br />
<br />
A BIM model is in theory a virtual representation of a real building. The assumption is that as long as everything is represented that is all that is required. Any shortcomings in practice is purely due to a lack of detail in the model, or poor modelling practices.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind here that a BIM Model is not drawings. Currently we use our BIM softwares to produce drawing sets that are contract deliverables. But what about the utopian future BIM evangelists say is inevitable? What would a fully mature BIM model be like?<br />
<ul>
<li>All information is in the model, one only needs to 'zoom in' to expose more detail.</li>
<li>Dimensions can be extracted from anywhere in the model.</li>
<li>All information about individual elements is available via the parameters they contain (which may include links to data outside the model).</li>
<li>Drawings are not created by the model author or contained in the model. Users create their own as they need them.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Sounds pretty good, not unlike many descriptions of what BIM is. But this is the description of a fully mature BIM model, once all the various authors and contributors have done their work.<br />
<br />
BIM models don't start out with such comprehensive information. They can't. All construction projects are a series of decisions based on previous decisions. Decisions are iterative, a decision may cause a previous decision to be revisited and changed. Interesting the original intent of Revit (an acronym of 'Revise' and 'it') was to make it easier to change design documents, making optimization of designs more practical. Only later did Autodesk re-badge it as a BIM tool.<br />
<br />
So when this description of what a BIM model should be is assessed against requirements during the design phase it falls short. The tools to communicate, manage and store information around decisions are missing.<br />
<br />
So what are the four big things BIM doesn't do for designers.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-size: 19px; font-weight: bold;">INTENTIONALITY </span></h3>
Although everything is not known in precise detail during design phases there is still information that needs to be communicated. Design intent, what is important and what is not. What requirements are, and which of those are critical, optimal and desirable.<br />
<br />
Assigning a wall as 'generic' only says a decision hasn't been made. It doesn't say what the limitations for making a decision are. And it only applies to individual elements, not to groups of elements.<br />
Another example is dimensioning. Not all dimensions are equal in importance. The clear width of an escape stair is more important than the width of a store room. How do you convey this in a BIM model where the recipient extracts their own dimensions?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dagsljus.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Rob Snyder</a>, an architect and software developer at Bentley, has attempted to provide a solution. In his own words: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A model is itself informational, while it '<i>lays out</i>' an environment of information. Within that environment, we draw attention to specific things and instruct people to look at those things and to do something. These '<i>drawings of attention'</i> are statements.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are models and data. These are '<i>environments</i>'.<br />
There are drawings. Drawings are '<i>statements</i>'.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think of it like this - a statement is any means of drawing attention to something specific within an environment, and then saying something about that thing. In AEC, this has conventionally been done by making a drawing. A drawing draws one's attention toward something specific, and says something about it."</blockquote>
Rob Snyder, LinkedIn discussion Oct 2013<br />
<br />
Bentely's solution to this problem is '<a href="http://www.bentley.com/en-AU/Products/MicroStation/hypermodels.htm" target="_blank">hypermodeling</a>' - software functionality that provides links within a model to drawings, typically 2D details, although in practice the link can be to anything. It is basically an implementation and extension of web '<i>hypertext</i>' (now usually referred to as '<i>links</i>') to modelling.<br />
What it does is provide visible 'tags' in the model that indicate points of importance, complete with links to why it is important.<br />
<br />
Graphisoft have a similar solution, which they call '<i>Hyper-models</i>' under the '<a href="http://www.graphisoft.com.au/bimx/" target="_blank">BIMx</a>' brand name. Similar to Bentley it provides links to 2D drawings from within a 3D model.<br />
<br />
Is this THE solution to the problem of intentionality?<br />
Snyder, and Bentley's implementation privileges 2D drawings. Which is not surprising considering Bentley's '<i>evolutionary</i>' approach of combining CAD and BIM. Graphisoft's approach is not so much a solution to intentionality as simply another way to access drawings.<br />
<br />
But conceptually there is no reason the idea of hyper-modelling has to privilege 2D drawings. A tag could link to, say, an exploded 3D detail, a render of the architect's design intent, or a performance brief for a mechanical system.<br />
<br />
<h3>
TOLERANCE</h3>
BIM models are precise. Computer software requires precision. But the real world is not that precise, particularly where humans are involved.<br />
It is not possible to always measure to the millimetre on a building site. Not all materials are uniform in size, even manufactured ones. Materials and elements move; concrete shrinks, bricks expand.<br />
I discussed this issue in my post <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/accuracy-vs-precision.html" target="_blank">Accuracy vs Precision</a>, but in this post my concern is the inability of BIM softwares to cater for the representation and management of tolerance.<br />
Designers - architects and engineers, have to allow for tolerance in their designs if they are to be constructible.<br />
But how do they do this with software that has no allowance for tolerances? Software that requires things to be exactly aligned and touching to work?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
An example:<br />
<br />
<b>Walls</b><br />
Walls are defined by the layers of materials that they are constructed from; e. g. plasterboard / stud / plasterboard. The thickness of these are set by the manufacturer's nominal thickness. In this example 13 / 92 / 13 = 118mm. But will this wall be exactly 118mm, everywhere, when measured on site?<br />
Now say you have an escape corridor that has to be no less than 1200mm wide, with 118mm walls on either side. How do you ensure 1200mm is the dimension the building inspector measures after it has been built? You need to make a decision about where it is set out from (an intentionality issue - see above) and where construction tolerances are taken up. The question is how do you do this in a pure BIM model?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
A common workaround is to add tolerance to material thickness, so 13mm plasterboard become 15mm. Problem with this is the estimator may cost 15mm plasterboard instead of 13mm, or worse the contractor orders 15mm plasterboard.<br />
Another workaround is to model tolerances. For example add a 'tolerance' material 2mm thick to either side in the above example. The problem with this approach is you see things that are modelled. But tolerance is not something that gets built, it is an allowance that get absorbed when the design becomes real (like collapse of a quantum wavefunction). So it can get confusing for people when tolerances are modelled.<br />
<br />
Like intentionality there are many ways this issue could be dealt with. But first it needs to be recognised a problem that requires a solution, something I have yet to see.<br />
<br />
<h3>
COMMENTS </h3>
<div>
During the design phase there are many questions and unknowns floating around. Rather than everyone keeping separate lists placing these directly in the BIM model ensures they are available to all participants, in something you know they are going to look at.<br />
What I like about comments in the model is the issues they point out remain in everyone's face until resolved. And in any case if in a proper BIM model they can be scheduled to create lists for those who like lists.<br />
<br />
The problem of comments is similar to that of intentionally discussed above. The difference is intentionality is part of final deliverables, comments are part of the process of creating deliverables, but not a deliverable themselves. Nevertheless the solution to both may be similar.<br />
<br />
Whilst it is true that elements can have comment parameters, comments do not necessary relate to individual elements. They may relate to multiple elements, elements missing, ("window required here?") or general comments not relating to any particular elements, ("redesign this area").<br />
<br />
I find it surprising BIM software doesn't have this ability, or that people are asking for it, as it is common in lots of other softwares.<br />
<br />
Once again there are workarounds, but they are usually annotation based rather than embedded in the BIM model. In Revit I use an annotation symbol with parameters that can be scheduled, but of course these are only visible on drawings, not really a BIM solution.<br />
<br />
<h3>
REVISIONS </h3>
It is a normal requirement to identify changes between document issues. The method to do it on drawings is well established. But there doesn't seem to be an established method for BIM.<br />
<br />
The method drawings use is not really suited to BIM. It is not possible to manually flag a revision in the model. A change in the model may effect many drawings, each has to be tracked down manually to have a 'cloud' added. Revisions are added after the fact, whereas the act of making a change could in theory automatically flag a revision.<br />
<br />
I have to admit I find the traditional method of managing revisions painfully time consuming, hard to enforce, and often uninformative (how many times have you seen "General changes").<br />
But whenever I have suggested alternative methods that are more efficient and informative it fails to be implemented because it is not "the way revisions are done".<br />
<br />
Other softwares keep 'histories' that could generate revisions, so it is technically feasible. (Andreas Ricke of <a href="http://www.arsoftwaresolutions.com.au/" target="_blank">AR Software Solutions</a> has a Revit add-in that can track changes).<br />
<br />
But what is missing is an agreed workflow or method that communicates changes. A few off the top of my head: Colour coding elements changed since last issue, automatic attachment of links to changed elements (like hypermodelling).<br />
<br />
I'm not sure why a better method for managing revisions hasn't surfaced. Maybe it is a chicken and egg situation. The software houses are waiting for some agreed method from the industry, industry can't explore alternatives because the software can't do what they need.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
To me these are the four big things BIM doesn't do that are holding back BIM from being a deliverable for construction in its own right.<br />
<br />
I don't believe any are insurmountable. Although they will ultimately rely on software functionality, they require agreed workflows. Something that should come from the AEC industry. We shouldn't just wait for the software houses to make something up they think they can market.<br />
<br />
Anyone have suggestions about where we start?<br />
<br /></div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-22389578465524454902013-12-16T21:23:00.000+11:002013-12-16T21:23:14.718+11:00Real BMP - Best Modelling Practice<div>
In my last post I wrote about <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/minimum-modelling-requirements.html" target="_blank">Minimum Modelling Requirements</a>, and the lack of standards around what that encompasses. But looking at examples of Minimum Modelling Requirements, and BIM Management Plans generally, it strikes me that the majority of their content describes what I would call <i>competent modelling practice</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can't help thinking that if we BIM authors modelled properly all this would be unnecessary.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But is it such a big deal? Sure it annoys me that someone else is telling me how to do my job, but I could just ignore it.</div>
<div>
The problem is the bomb shells hidden inside Minimum Modelling Requirements. Like "all walls will be modelled floor to floor", "all door hardware shall be modelled", "components shall be named as per the owners FM requirements", etc. But what do we expect when non-experts get involved in areas they know little about?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
How about we BIM authors take back the initiative by setting our own <i>Best Modelling Practices</i>, our alternative to BIM Management Plans.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We should be doing it anyway to get our in-office teams working efficiently. Unfortunately the reality is that few firms allow the resources necessary. Management see it as an in-house overhead with no tangible benefit to the bottom line.<br />
But what if BMP is escalated to being a requirement necessary to achieve BIM deliverables? That it is not just an office "CAD manual" but a description of the limits of your BIM deliverable. An antidote to the unlimited scope of work a BIM Execution Plan can trap the unwary player into. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There will never be standard BIM Best Modelling Practices (despite the efforts of the standards junkies). Different BIM softwares (and different versions of the same software) require different approaches, also BIM competencies and BIM requirements differ. But really the details don't matter. If BMP cover appropriate issues and are well structured they will be adequate to achieve their aims.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What are the basics of Best Modelling Practice?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
CATEGORIES</h3>
<div>
All BIM software categorizes elements. Called <i>Categories</i> in Revit; <i>Layers</i>, <i>Levels</i>, and the like in other softwares. It is the name given to elements with a common function and behaviour, like Walls, Ceilings, Doors, Furniture etc.</div>
<div>
It is fairly obvious that it is important the same things are identified together. That when you make only walls visible all you can see are walls, not kerbs, beams or parts of windows; when someone does a wall schedule it only lists walls; when thermal analysis is done walls can be identified by the thermal analysis software.</div>
<div>
Sounds pretty straight forward yet it is amazing how often you will find a floor used for a ceiling, a floor used for beams, windows used as doors. Then there is the ambiguity that plagues furniture, joinery (casework), fixtures and equipment.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Make a list of your software's categories describing what each is to be used for. This list can be just for your office, discipline, or across all disciplines for a project. If it involves other disciplines list which discipline is responsible for which category.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If categories in your software are user defined, (Revit Categories are fixed, but ArchiCAD Layers are not), institute a method to manage parameters to prevent new ones popping up in an uncontrolled way. This can be a shared spreadsheet, project model manager, or the office BIM tyrant, (sorry . . . BIM Manager). </div>
<div>
If there is a hierarchy of categories (Revit has user defined <i>subcategories</i>), try and manage those as well.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUCKU91FkFnDq8hJEYYPYuJnj1SgCkTZvOproH30HYHEy27PyfDVG0DOt92OMyqinFPAaNsnvcO-3dWlbG3kThWS3DxbTW6D-zN4lYV5lB1wp2TmPC09yNGiRmZpGpsjD9x1L41a36Haec/s1600/CategoryUses_485.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUCKU91FkFnDq8hJEYYPYuJnj1SgCkTZvOproH30HYHEy27PyfDVG0DOt92OMyqinFPAaNsnvcO-3dWlbG3kThWS3DxbTW6D-zN4lYV5lB1wp2TmPC09yNGiRmZpGpsjD9x1L41a36Haec/s1600/CategoryUses_485.png" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
PARAMETERS</h3>
<div>
Sometimes called attributes or properties. Basically the names of data fields used to contain data about elements, like <i>Thickness</i>, <i>Material</i>, <i>Model Number</i> etc. At the simplest level these are used to generate schedules, but may also be used for analysis, and to provide data to others for their purposes (e.g. FM).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There can literally be thousands of parameters in a project. For Doors alone it can run into the hundreds. Some try and list every conceivable parameter that anyone may possibly use one day. Some insist parameters follow a labyrinthine naming schema that only computer scientists understand (both of which happen if you get a "BIM consultant" involved). This is clearly ludicrous (see my <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/to-cobie-or-not-to-cobie.html" target="_blank">COBie post</a>).</div>
<div>
The reality is that if you have managed parameters you can convert them to any other system. For example you don't need to use COBie names to export COBie, you just need to know which of your parameters correspond to the appropriate COBie attribute.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Start with a naming schema for your parameters. Even if they are only for internal use it is good practice to make your parameters identifiable as yours. The most common method is an abbreviated prefix, e.g. <i>PB_is Existing</i>.</div>
<div>
Also insist naming be major - minor - subminor etc. so similar things list together; instead of <i>Door Type</i>, <i>Frame Type</i>, <i>Glazing Type</i> use <i>Type Door</i>, <i>Type Frame</i>, <i>Type Glazing</i>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Next list the parameters needed to create your schedules, which, when you think about it, is just a list of schedule headings. This list forms the master list of parameters.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
Then institute a method to manage parameters. The best way is to limit who can create them, like the project model manager, or make someone responsible for schedules in your project team. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A word of warning - don't overdo - remember every piece of data not only has to be put in, it has to be managed, checked and kept up to date.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrXlWAXsH5ym764SPmf_hyphenhyphenghIWT0NPXOGbBc6p70Y2BgKuVDp_zEuOQJuHfDxx1BwMfC5vuRah0SMeb7c-G5PWM2cN5veacu-yB67JBkj7Yu4u7S7lV9LiZUXchuea4OR7XtYUdrRzEKIY/s1600/SharedParameters_450.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrXlWAXsH5ym764SPmf_hyphenhyphenghIWT0NPXOGbBc6p70Y2BgKuVDp_zEuOQJuHfDxx1BwMfC5vuRah0SMeb7c-G5PWM2cN5veacu-yB67JBkj7Yu4u7S7lV9LiZUXchuea4OR7XtYUdrRzEKIY/s1600/SharedParameters_450.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
MODEL CONSTRUCTION</h3>
<div>
Model Construction is about the limits on how things in a model are constructed.</div>
<div>
This is a fairly fluid area which tends to change depending on the abilities of those working on the project, expectations of others, and limitations of software (which changes with each new version). It is also hard to make hard and fast rules. Whilst modelling down to 25mm might be OK for doors and windows, it is overkill for facade systems and equipment. Never the less it is worth establishing guidelines to help those modelling make consistent decisions and inform those receiving models what to expect.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An effective way to begin is to make a list of things that are ambiguous; the things users ask about, the things users do not do consistently. Work out what the alternative answers could be, and then pick one. Don't worry too much about being right or wrong. No-one really knows what will work or won't, we are all still grappling in the dark. And rest assured, if something doesn't work someone will tell you soon enough.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some suggestions to start with:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><u>Thicknesses</u>: actual material thicknesses or a 'zone'?<br />actual thickness mean dimensions are too precise (eg. 92 instead of 90);<br />zones reflect reality - there is always tolerance, but then do you;<br />- 'fake' a material thickness - which ones - structure or finish; or<br />- add 'tolerance' materials.</li>
<li><u>Minimum size:</u> what is the minimum size that will be modelled?<br />what is identifiable on a 1:100 or 1:50 drawing; or<br />actual size 50mm or 25mm;</li>
<li><u>Type of things not modelled:</u><br />fixings (bolts, screws, fixing plates etc);<br />materials or objects smaller than (materials thinner than 5mm, pipes < 25mm OD);<br />controls (buttons, switches etc), hardware (handles, hinges, latches, hooks etc.);<br />certain elements (reinforcing bar, single wire runs, etc).<br />other's work (ducts if you are an architect, plant room walls if you are an engineer).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
This list is not exhaustive, some projects will suggest different things.<br />
If you are worried about the imprecision of it all, make general statements, like "model elements will generally not contain parts smaller than 25mm".<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
NAMING</h3>
<div>
Lots of things in BIM software have user definable names. From wall types to fill patterns. If you are providing your BIM model to others your names will need to be navigable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But that said, exact naming conventions is not that important to others outside your office. What is important to them is that naming is consistent and understandable. That the same thing does not exist under multiple names (e.g. same wall construction with different names); that names are human understandable by someone other than those that have memorized some archaic abbreviation system; that some computer friendly / human incomprehensible naming schema has not been used.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another trap is to use project specific notation for names. Like wall type codes to name wall types. Not only do you have to be familiar with the project's wall codes to know what you are looking at, if the code changes you have to change the name. And what do you do early on in the project, before wall codes for the project have been developed? What do you call them then? And if you think you can create a master list for all projects think again. World experts can't do it (see section on Classifications below), and if they could why wouldn't you use theirs instead of making your own up?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My point is any naming schema must work during design phases, before codes, schedules etc have been established. And they should not encode information available elsewhere as a parameter. The worst case I have seen is COBie's suggestion that components have the room they are in embedded in their name. What happens if they are moved to another room?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So names of things should describe, using normal language, what they are. But be brief, you don't want names so long they don't fit on the screen. Structure names, major - minor - subminor etc. and use punctuation characters and capitalization to make them understandable.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1-6fqJN5OzGjpyI2r5FsWCuMOv-zXj2Jpa-2GWX0J6Q8pFQHKBb-6FM2U3OiJ_G0liWAJbtlzCAJdoEyMcUtvIMxA_l8S44TV7DQrXX45VRHt5DpvtzB18hiLlxRBM8PRz63IclOW-xZ8/s1600/WallTypeNames_500.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1-6fqJN5OzGjpyI2r5FsWCuMOv-zXj2Jpa-2GWX0J6Q8pFQHKBb-6FM2U3OiJ_G0liWAJbtlzCAJdoEyMcUtvIMxA_l8S44TV7DQrXX45VRHt5DpvtzB18hiLlxRBM8PRz63IclOW-xZ8/s1600/WallTypeNames_500.png" /></a></div>
Example Wall Type names.<br />
<interior|exterior>.<Partition|Stud> <OA thickness> <b>_</b> <exterior material <b>/ </b>structure <b>/ </b>interior><br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
CLASSIFICATION </h3>
<div>
Classification systems attempt to provide everything with a unique identifying number (or number/letter combination). The two biggest in the english speaking world are the <a href="http://www.omniclass.org/" target="_blank">US Omniclass</a> and the <a href="http://www.cpic.org.uk/uniclass/" target="_blank">UK Uniclass</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Classifications should probably be first on the list, but at the present time classification systems are not quite there yet. These systems were originally established for specifications and other AEC reports. As it turns out they are not that comprehensive, nor logical enough to be computer useful.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
UK's Uniclass is more BIM friendly (<a href="http://www.thenbs.com/topics/practicemanagement/articles/omniclasscritique.asp" target="_blank">according to them</a>), but has many unfinished parts to it. The US's Omniclass is not as well structured for BIM, nor complete. <a href="http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/Revit-Architecture/Revit-Assembly-Codes-source/td-p/2417424" target="_blank">Revit had to add non-Omniclass numbers</a> when they introduced the ability to assign a value to Revit elements. And just to confuse everyone Omniclass includes tables called <a href="http://uniformat.com/index.php/background" target="_blank">Uniformat</a> (which is what the <i>Assembly</i> parameter in Revit is assigned to).<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
But in the long term everyone will be better off if we all just use one or other of these systems. It makes our BIM models discoverable without us having to do extra work, like follow the contractors or owners naming schemas.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I recommend getting into the habit of assigning Omniclass (incl. Uniformat) or Uniclass numbers to elements (pick one, don't mix them up!). Components (e.g. Revit families) should have them when constructed as a matter of course. Standard walls, roofs, ceilings etc. in template files should also have them filled in.</div>
<div>
But there is no point insisting all project generated elements have a classification if it is not a deliverable. However by having pre-made elements pre-populated you will be more than halfway there when it does become a deliverable. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
SUMMARY</h3>
<div>
To set your team up for Best Modelling Practice you need to ensure:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Categories are used consistently</li>
<li>Parameters are logically named, and there are sufficient to do the tasks required, but no more.</li>
<li>Model Construction limitations and practices are defined.</li>
<li>Naming of all things is structured and human legible.</li>
<li>Classification numbers are assigned, where convenient.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And the best way to do this is to document how each of these will be achieved.</div>
<div>
Not only can this documentation be used to manage your in-house team, it can form the basis of a full BIM Execution Plan, or your contribution to a project BIM Execution Plan.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what are you waiting for, start your BMP today.<br />
<br />
Postscript:<br />
I don't claim to be the font of all BIM knowledge. I'd be keen to hear from anyone who knows of other important Best Modelling Practices I may have missed.</div>
Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5634085675780254011.post-12042793266186964842013-11-15T14:33:00.001+11:002013-11-15T14:33:30.941+11:00Minimum Modelling Requirements The basis of BIM as a process is that information created by a participant for their purposes can be reused by others to assist them with their purposes.<br />
For this to work 3 things have to happen:<br />
<ol>
<li>The information has to be there at the time it is required (i.e. is actually generated).</li>
<li>It needs to be in a form useful to others (i.e. they don't need to re-create it)</li>
<li>It needs to be reliable (at least for the purposes others will use it for).</li>
</ol>
The last is covered by LOD, the middle one is covered by designating software, or use of standards (like IFC), and the first is covered by Minimum Modelling Requirements.<br />
<br />
The first requirement is the most important - the others have no meaning if the information doesn't exist - yet it is the least discussed and tackled by industry bodies. There is endless discussion and work being done on openBIM, COBie and the like; LOD is becoming mature and is now appearing in agreements and contracts.<br />
<br />
But where is the clear definition of Minimum Modelling Requirements? Certainly many owner groups have tackled this issue and come up with their own solution - they have to, they operate in the real world where results are a necessity. But where are all the bureaucrats, academics and standards junkies?<br />
<br />
Am I being unfair? - probably. I don't really believe the issue is being totally ignored. But the reality is where do I go to get practical advice on Minimum Modelling Requirements? Surely there is a better way than just referring to publicly available owner's attempts at solving the issue (and I say attempts because there is no way to assess how successful they have been).<br />
<br />
Like all things BIM different participants have different views on what Minimum Modelling Requirements means. From owners who think it is just about ensuring they have a BIM based FM system at the end of the project to BIM mangers trying to get their team to model consistently.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Delineating Minimum Modelling Requirements</h3>
<div>
So let's start by trying to list what Minimum Modelling Requirements could include.</div>
<h4>
WHO</h4>
Who are Minimum Modelling Requirements directed at:<br />
<ul>
<li>others so they can meet their own Minimum Modelling Requirements </li>
<li>others documentation needs </li>
<li>others analysis needs</li>
<li>construction needs (clash, sequencing)</li>
<li>costing </li>
<li>FM </li>
<li>your own needs (like documentation, analysis etc)</li>
</ul>
<h4>
TYPES of INFORMATION</h4>
What are the types of information Minimum Modelling Requirements applies to:<br />
<ul>
<li>element categories </li>
<li>element geometry </li>
<li>degree of detail (how much)</li>
<li>degree of precision (how small)</li>
<li>data (parameters)</li>
</ul>
<h4>
WAYS to DEFINE</h4>
What are (some of) the possible ways to define Minimum Modelling Requirements:<br />
<ul>
<li>text description </li>
<li>table / matrix </li>
<li>no definition, just suitable for end use</li>
</ul>
<h4>
WAYS to ENFORCE</h4>
How might Minimum Modelling Requirements be enforced:<br />
<ul>
<li>contract deliverable (forced)</li>
<li>scope of works in agreements (offered)</li>
<li>included in BIM Execution Plan (agreed)</li>
<li>industry expectation ("reasonable professional" would provide)</li>
</ul>
<h4>
COMPLIANCE</h4>
Once Minimum Modelling Requirements have been established how might they be checked for compliance:<br />
<ul>
<li>human sign off</li>
<li>computer checking</li>
<li>fit for purpose</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Note that these lists are not all unique methods, some are alternatives that on the surface seem to have the same purposes. Nor exclusive; more than one may be utilized. But of course different methods will have different outcomes.<br />
<br />
Different participants will use different methods to achieve what they believe are their aims. Owners like using end use / fit for purpose type methods as it shifts their responsibilities onto others. BIM managers like using highly specific software dependant requirements that can be computer checked because it makes their job easier (and they like using computers).<br />
<br />
<h3>
Current Examples</h3>
A comprehensive analysis of all attempts at Minimum Modelling Requirements would be a PHD in itself, and be out of date before it was finished. But I'll endeavour to show examples of different approaches to the issue.<br />
<br />
<h4>
MPS - VICO Software (US commercial)</h4>
VICO is an example of a number of commercial firms providing BIM planning services. They call their Minimum Modelling Requirements product <a href="http://www.vicosoftware.com/model-progression-specification/" target="_blank">Model Progression Specification</a> (MPS). They also offer many other services around this so it is not a matter of simply purchasing a copy and using it.<br />
I can't go into the specifics about their MPS as I have never used it, but it seems to be an elaboration of the [US]AIA E209 Document LOD table (the E209 document is actually based on VICO's MPS).<br />
Commercial firms effectively make you pay to utilise their experience. But they also offer a service - they do some of the work someone in the team would otherwise would have to do. It is therefore hard to say if their success is due to the experience they bring or the extra manpower. I suspect it is both.<br />
<br />
<h4>
M3 - USACE (US government body)</h4>
<div>
The USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Minimum Modelling Matrix (M3) is used by the US military to manage BIM construction projects. It is an example of owner created Minimum Modelling Requirements. It is freely available at their <a href="https://cadbim.usace.army.mil/BIM" target="_blank">BIM web portal</a> (with free registration).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The M3 relies on Uniformat 2010 codes being associated with every element. Uniformat 2010 is a hierarchical classification system that includes 'headings' that apply to multiple elements. The M3 has designated Levels 1 to 3 to these headings, with only Level 4 applying to individual elements.</div>
<div>
As an example:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Level 1 is all equipment and furnishings (E);</li>
<li>Level 2 is equipment (E10) and furnishings (E20);</li>
<li>Level 3 is Commercial Equipment (E1030);</li>
<li>Level 4 is individual equipment type like Hospitality Equipment (E1030.50).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The M3 has a separate table for Levels 1 and 2 where general text descriptions of what is required are listed against each element 'heading'.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKlXVtcgS_BmRnJ_OVvONDcrfGIZ_yG66S8pM1yhbYdv8w9hfEEQNC3hx5cRKU8KPv-YsKqwN-z8cCnEkPNjAI37aIyvUShKDFpqGSgtKCRBnGhLw6S3UiTuUV5OlYvrDCa6p8i5pM_exf/s1600/USACELevel_640.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKlXVtcgS_BmRnJ_OVvONDcrfGIZ_yG66S8pM1yhbYdv8w9hfEEQNC3hx5cRKU8KPv-YsKqwN-z8cCnEkPNjAI37aIyvUShKDFpqGSgtKCRBnGhLw6S3UiTuUV5OlYvrDCa6p8i5pM_exf/s1600/USACELevel_640.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">USACE M3 level descriptions</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The other table has all Levels in a tabular format. Levels 1, 2 and 3 are just headings with little information against them, Level 4 is for elements, with a range of columns against them.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUegd5Ffr4Hmoa42xxFVw2x9Em7hYUvKnltpKhUNrSjHUhiTA8XC4ILRNnCbOdK71RmH-M4UgkYRv7MDsar-NOUgp6IKU7zjX36AOSS9nDXck2FnLl2Sige_GxMD8fhKDdynR2le7leu8W/s1600/USACEM3_1040.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUegd5Ffr4Hmoa42xxFVw2x9Em7hYUvKnltpKhUNrSjHUhiTA8XC4ILRNnCbOdK71RmH-M4UgkYRv7MDsar-NOUgp6IKU7zjX36AOSS9nDXck2FnLl2Sige_GxMD8fhKDdynR2le7leu8W/s640/USACEM3_1040.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">USACE M3 example</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div>
In terms of Minimum Modelling Requirements the columns for <i>LOD</i> and <i>Grade</i> are of interest.</div>
<div>
LOD means what we now expect it to mean - it indicates the level of certainty required of that element and is defined in terms of the [US]AIA E209 document. But only LOD 100 to 300 are given a definition, and in this table LOD is not associated with a milestone. Yet the other column of interest, Grade, is. But only for Construction Documents and As-Builts.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Grade sets how elements are to be graphically represented:<br />
<b>A</b> 3D + facility data<br />
<b>B</b> 2D + facility data<br />
<b>C</b> 2D only (drafting, linework, text and or part of an assembly)<br />
<b>+</b> original grade modified<br />
<b>-</b> not included or tied to the BIM model (however is still required in the deliverable)<br />
● Refer to the other Levels 1 & 2 table, or is a heading (Level 3).<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
M3 definitions reflect strongly back to documentation. Many Level 1 and 2 requirements include<br />
"<i>... elements shall be depicted with necessary intelligence to produce plans, sections, elevations and schedules ...</i>". LOD 300 includes "<i>Accurate to the degree dimensioned or indicated on contract documents</i>".<br />
Other types of description are also found, although not consistently across all definitions. Things like "<i>Small diameter (less than 1-1/2” NPS) field-routed piping is not required to be depicted in the Model</i>", and "<i>Slabs shall be developed in the structural model and then referenced by the architectural model</i>".<br />
<br />
So the M3 defines:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>General modelling requirements (using text)</li>
<li>Type of graphic (2D or 3D) and whether data included. (using a table)</li>
<li>LOD (sort of, surely LOD changes between Construction and Record models)</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
As you can see it is really quite a mish-mash not only of methods, but also mixes documentation with BIM requirements.<br />
<br /></div>
Despite this the USACE M3 is often quoted as one of the best examples of Minimum Modelling Requirements freely available. From a practical sense I tend to agree. They are making a good attempt at encouraging BIM in an industry not yet geared up to provide it. Which is its Achilles heal when it comes to taking lessons from it. The M3 is not necessarily best practice for BIM proficient participants. In fact I believe it has the potential to hinder BIM use. But it is (so far) an evolving document and well worth keeping an eye on for future developments.<br />
<br />
<h4>
LOD Specification - BIMforum (US industry group)</h4>
<a href="http://bimforum.org/" target="_blank">BIMforum</a> is a US based non-profit industry group. There are many of these, but BIMforum is worth a mention because they have recently released an <a href="http://bimforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-LOD-Specification.pdf" target="_blank">LOD Specification</a>.<br />
This document was created in response to the [US]AIA E209 document and directly uses its definitions.<br />
<br />
It lists elements using the Uniformat classification system, and against each element there is a list under the title of "<i>Element modeling to include:</i>"<br />
Like the USACE M3 it is hierarchical, but simpler. Higher order classifications contain descriptions that are typical referenced back to by lower order classification that don't require further modeling (typically for LOD100 & LOD200). Further, if an element has the same requirements as another, it references back to that earlier element rather than repeat the same information.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpy2umeyhktSFQFwt8bg046WfbnXB4o8WAMkKj0Gav985oR-mfz_ZLWStpdo_2RbmsNriglK6gFA51Mcvews1son-faay3dbrclePET0YLoWvaeAzdPr4jrRcbdjr9begpoyDWLMP4DnqL/s1600/LODspec_600.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpy2umeyhktSFQFwt8bg046WfbnXB4o8WAMkKj0Gav985oR-mfz_ZLWStpdo_2RbmsNriglK6gFA51Mcvews1son-faay3dbrclePET0YLoWvaeAzdPr4jrRcbdjr9begpoyDWLMP4DnqL/s1600/LODspec_600.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">BIMforum LOD Specification Example</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Strictly speaking I shouldn't include BIMforum's LOD Specification in a discussion on Minimum Modeling Requirements. LOD is supposed to be about what information can be used with certainty - not what information exists.<br />
<br />
But one way to define what can be used with certainty is to describe the minimum amount of information required to meet that certainty. This method becomes a de-facto description of Minimum Modeling Requirements: if you do no more than meet the LOD Specification requirements you will have met your LOD obligations; if you have done more than that, others can only reliably use what the LOD Specification describes for that LOD. <br />
<br />
But BIMforum admit their LOD Specification is not intended to be for Minimum Modeling Requirements. In the LOD Definitions sections it list two examples of areas not covered: <i>Size Thresholds</i> and <i>Clearances</i>, inferring there are others also not covered.<br />
<br />
LOD is often mistaken for, or assumed it can be used for, Minimum Modeling Requirements. An instance of which I discussed in <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-is-use-of-bim-use.html" target="_blank">my last post</a>.<br />
That said they both make use of the same information - descriptions of element modeling. There may be a way to leverage this to reduce the amount of information necessary to define Minimum Modeling Requirements.<br />
But I believe it is important to remember that LOD by itself is not enough to define Minimum Modeling Requirements.<br />
<br />
<h4>
DPoW - BIM Task Group (UK government)</h4>
The <a href="http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/" target="_blank">BIM Task Group</a> is a government body in the UK with the aim of "<i>helping deliver the objectives of the Government Construction Strategy and the requirement to strengthen the public sector’s capability in BIM implementation</i>".<br />
I came across one of their draft documents while researching this post. Its name "<a href="http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/task-group-labs-portal/" target="_blank">Digital Plan of Work (DPoW)</a>" [follow the links - requires registration] made me think it might be a good candidate for defining Minimum Modeling Requirements. Particularly as it may possibly be an extension of an existing body of work by the RIBA on building design and construction processes (<a href="http://www.ribaplanofwork.com/" target="_blank">RIBA Plan of Work</a>).<br />
<br />
But alas, I was disappointed, not surprised, but disappointed at another lost opportunity.<br />
Admittedly it is a draft, but the problem is with the whole focus of the document, nothing a few tweaks are going to overcome.<br />
Beside some items that probably should be in another document it is dominantly a proposal for computer based checking of COBie data submission.<br />
<br />
For a start COBie is no-where near being a way of defining Minimum Modeling Requirements. COBie is only about data, not geometry, not end uses. It is a standard way of structuring data, it actually says nothing about what that data needs to include (see <a href="http://practicalbim.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/to-cobie-or-not-to-cobie.html" target="_blank">my post for more on COBie</a>).<br />
<br />
As a strategy, computer based checking is problematic. To do the checking some-one has to set up a checking system. That system will have its own requirements. So there needs to be <i>Minimum Modeling Requirements Checking Requirements</i> defined. And how is it checked that these <i>Minimum Modeling Requirements Checking Requirements</i> have been met?<br />
Assuming the checking has fewer requirements than the actual requirements, in theory there could be a series of checking levels of reducing complexity, until a level simple enough for a human to grasp in its totality is reached.<br />
But we all know what will happen in the real world. No-one will check the checking requirements. A template will be used from another project without being properly edited, because the person editing is not responsible for the outcome, the person being checked is. It will be left up to the parties being checked to highlight errors in the checking, creating an enormous additional work burden for everyone actually involved in getting the facility built.<br />
Computer based checking has a place, as a tool in a kit of tools, not as a strategy for defining requirements.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem is none of it is useful, or even close to being useful. Beside the fact it doesn't actually cover what is required for Minimum Modeling Requirements (or Plan of Works for that matter), it can't be used until the checking software is finished and tested. What does the industry do in the meantime? Keep doing it the old way then suddenly everyone switches at the same time to the new way? Are they serious?<br />
<br />
This is a classic example of bureaucrats, academics and standards junkies tackling the Minimum Modeling Requirements problem. I just hope this is not the only attempt the UK government (or the RBIA for that matter) will make at integrating BIM into their Plan of Work concept.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
At risk of being compared to bureaucrats, academics and standards junkies, I don't have any practical solution. I just don't think we are there yet.<br />
<br />
At the moment I suspect the USACE M3 approach is the most realistic. A customised mish-mash to get the results required.<br />
BIMforum's LOD Specification is new (released August this year) and largely untested. It is not designed to be customised so may or may not work for you. In any case it could only ever be part of a customized mish-mash as it doesn't cover everything required of Minimum Modeling Requirements.<br />
If the money available a commercial provider is a good bet, if for no other reason than to lessen the workload and extra responsibilities a BIM delivery requirement generates for everyone involved. <br />
<br />
But in the spirit of being practical I will offer some advice on good practices that should make complying with any Minimum Modeling Requirements easier.<br />
<h4>
GOOD MODELING PRACTICE</h4>
<ul>
<li>Use your software as it was designed to be used - don't use shortcuts purely for the production of documentation.</li>
<li>Embed all the data you can into your model - then use it to generate all schedules.</li>
<li>Use categories (or their non-Revit equivalents) in consistent and transparent ways.</li>
<li>Insist on a robust co-ordinate base point.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
GOOD EXCHANGE PRACTICES</h4>
<ul>
<li>Make sure all non-BIM and non-project specific elements are identifiable, and if possible remove them before issuing your model.</li>
<li>Check your model for consistency before issuing.</li>
<li>Provide documentation to others on how your model is structured.</li>
<li>Define the degree of precision you model to.</li>
<li>Create a table of LOD expectations for selected milestones.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<h3>
Postscript - What's in a name</h3>
I've used the term Minimum Modeling <i>Requirements</i> throughout this post. But is it the best term?<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><i>Requirements</i> makes it sound like an imposition. Something only the owner controls.</li>
<li><i>Standard</i>? The level everyone is expected to achieve. Perhaps too soon to be meaningful.</li>
<li><i>Provision</i>? The level to be provided. Bit like Requirement.</li>
<li><i>Contribution</i>? The level each participant contributes to the overall BIM.</li>
</ul>
<br />
I like the last. <i>Minimum Modeling Contribution</i>. It can come from anyone, as an offer, or as a request. It is in the spirit of collaboration.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Antony McPheehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15366532205983073622noreply@blogger.com0