AIA TAP 2006 Conference

The annual US AIA National Convention and Expo 2006 was held last week in Los Angeles, and as was the case the year before, it was preceded by the AIA TAP (Technology in Architectural Practice) conference, held as a pre-convention workshop. However, unlike last year, where the AIA TAP conference was held over the course of two days, the TAP conference this year was limited to a single day. It was followed the next day by an associated, but separate event, the AIA Integrated Practice conference. While both conferences had a similar format, the TAP conference was more focused on the application of technology within the architectural profession while the Integrated Practice conference took a broader look at technology and process changes across the building industry as a whole. This AECbytes newsletter captures the highlights of the TAP conference. The highlights of the Integrated Practice conference and the National Convention and Expo will be published in separate articles over the next two weeks.

The title of this year's TAP conference was "Models for the Future of the Architecture Profession: The Risks, Rewards, and Opportunities of Technology." Not surprisingly, most of the sessions were focused on BIM (building information modeling), which was identified as an "inevitable technology" in the opening session, along with collaboration and interoperability. As was the case last year (see AECbytes Newsletter #21), BIM was taken for granted, so most of the discussions were focused on implementation aspects and process changes rather than on making the case for BIM. In addition to the general opening and closing sessions, there were 9 concurrent sessions in three groups focused on topics such as BIM-enabled lean design and construction, collaboration between architects and engineers, organic building modeling, retooling architectural practice for collaboration and technology, BIM for the small firm, the GSA's BIM requirements, and an update on the IAI and its buildingSMART initiative. The day concluded with the presentation of the second annual BIM Awards, which will be the focus of a separate AECbytes article next month.

I was a co-presenter at one of the sessions, so I had the opportunity to attend only two of the other concurrent sessions, which are described in detail below. This is followed by some of the key issues that were discussed at the opening and closing sessions, and my analysis of the conference as a whole.

A Joint Session by HOK and Arup

This session was entitled, "Models for Digital Collaboration with Engineers," and it brought together Mario Guttman of HOK and Eric Ko of Arup, two of the world's leading architectural and engineering firms respectively, with a brief introduction by Mark Frost of Autodesk. I went into this session expecting to hear about how HOK and Arup were collaborating together on projects to realize the multi-disciplinary benefits of BIM. So I was somewhat disappointed to find that they talked mostly about general collaboration issues instead of specific details on how they have collaborated with each other. It turned out that the joint project their firms had started working on had been canned, which was a pity, considering it could have yielded some great insights for the industry as a whole. Nevertheless, it was interesting to get some indepth perspective on BIM implementation at these firms, especially Arup, which, as far as I know, is presenting at AIA TAP for the first time.

Mario Guttman of HOK, who presented first, did not show any specific examples of collaborative design done by HOK, but did share several important aspects architects need to keep in mind when collaborating with engineers. It was critical to share the right data, not just throw data at engineers. It is a myth that more data is better; likewise, some other myths that should be dispelled are that one model fits all and that live interaction—where the architect and engineering are working simultaneously on a model in real time—is better. Architects need to control how much information gets handed over. With regard to the model, the engineering one is quite different from the architectural one, just as the FM (facilities management) process further down the chain will not need all of the data generated during design. Architects needs to distinguish between managing risk and avoiding liability, but that said, HOK's lawyers are looking at new legal rules and case laws in relation to BIM. With regard to interoperability, HOK has always been at the forefront of the buildingSMART initiative [see Guttman's AECbytes Viewpoint article, "buildingSMART (get over it)"] and is pushing ahead with the IFCs, but Guttman did acknowledge that there were technical issues with it. The hard reality was that integration was being achieved at HOK by the use of a single platform—Revit—rather than by using interoperable software.

In his presentation, Eric Ko of Arup showed several examples of projects in which Arup had collaborated with various architectural firms including Anshen+Allen, Legorreta Architects, and Perkins & Will using a model-based approach. This typically involved the use of Autodesk Revit Structure and Autodesk Building Systems (ABS) by Arup for structural and MEP design respectively, with the architectural firms using various applications such as AutoCAD and ADT. Specific examples of integration included duct layout optimization based on the architect's 3D model and conflict resolution by merging the 3D models of each discipline. From Arup's perspective, the initial investment in BIM technology and implementation has paid off in the savings achieved by less RFIs alone, and all new projects are now being done using BIM. Even though the examples presented at the TAP conference only used Revit Structure and ABS, Arup is a global organization and uses many different solutions, including those from Bentley. Instead of trying to standardize on one platform—a difficult task for such a large firm—Arup is working internally on developing software that will allow the use of different BIM applications by the firm without loss of efficiency.

Other issues that came up for discussion during the Q/A session were training and fees. Both Guttman and Ko agreed that more than the technology training, it was the cultural training that was the key. In the 2D world, people used to spend a lot of time doing things to making the drawing "look right." With BIM, this is totally redundant, and professionals using BIM need to think about what they are doing, since every task performed in the software is related to the design of the building in some way. With regard to the issue of whether an increased fee could be charged for the use of BIM, the two panelists had somewhat different perspectives. Ko found that clients were open to an increased fee, whereas Guttman felt that architects needed to do it anyway, otherwise they would be out of business.

DProfiler: A new BIM Solution from the Beck Group

I first mentioned the Beck Group—a large building firm—in my article on the Technology for Construction show held in January, where its Managing Director, Peter Beck, participated in a session and described how the firm had developed its own solution, DESTINI, to integrate the different building disciplines and was realizing numerous improvements in design, cost, and schedule with it. DESTINI is currently customized for office buildings, and captures not just building information but also some intelligence and rules specific to office design. At the AIA TAP conference, Stewart Carroll of the Beck Group gave a preview of another application developed by the Beck Group, called DProfiler, which is a BIM solution but of a different kind. From Beck's perspective, "traditional BIM solutions" such as Revit, ArchiCAD, and so on deal with "micro models" that provide value only in design development and the production of better coordinated construction documents. All the downstream benefits such as cost estimating and construction scheduling come only later, after the BIM development has been done using these solutions. They do not help to answer the most fundamental question early on in the process, namely "Should I build this project?"

This is where DProfiler comes in. Developed to address the limitations of the "micro model" BIM solutions, it works as a "macro model" BIM solution that can be used at the planning and conceptual design phase to get an accurate cost estimate of a proposed design. And it does this by integrating RS Means within the application, with over 20,000 assembly cost databases that are pulled immediately to provide an interactive cost estimate on the fly as you are modeling the design. Needless to say, it is also designed to be simple and easy-to-use, since it is targeted towards the conceptual design stage. A demonstration of the application given during the presentation showed that while it wasn't as easy and intuitive to use as SketchUp—one of the most popular conceptual design tools in use today—it is definitely far less complex than Revit or ArchiCAD. DProfiler also integrates with Google Earth in the same way as SketchUp does (which is described in AECbytes Newsletter #23), so the design can be modeled in the context of the actual site. It also includes various smarts to make the modeling easier, for instance, an automated parking tool that can lay out the parking spaces automatically in a designated parking lot. With regard to organic building forms, DProfiler does not have that capability yet.

The basic idea behind DProfiler is to predict the project cost early on in the project as well as to better control it, reducing the owner's risk of the design eventually not conforming with the budget. The real-time cost estimating feature can also be used to rapidly evaluate different design alternatives for the project on the basis of cost. It works with several assumptions, of course, but these can be modified, along with the cost data. In a way, these assumptions form the design criteria for the project, and they can be retained as part of its design history. DProfiler is not intended to replace the traditional "micro model" BIM solutions, but is designed to be complementary to them. The Beck Group is working on IFC export capability which can allow the design concept initiated in DProfiler to be exported to traditional BIM solutions for further development. It has already been used internally by the Beck Group for close to 130 projects, and they have found that the final cost of the projects done with DProfiler comes close to within 5% of the initial estimate, compared to their earlier projects where the discrepancy between the initial estimate and final cost was as much as 40%.

DProfiler is not yet commercially available. The Beck Group is looking for the best way to market it, and still has to decide on aspects such as pricing. While it is terrific to see new solutions being developed that address different aspects of BIM, SketchUp is already so well entrenched as the conceptual design tool among architects that unless DProfiler can compete with it on the price aspect (the professional version of SketchUp costs only $495; the standard version is free), it is not going to be easy to get architects to switch to using DProfiler. Also, it seems a little impractical to envisage a workflow that goes from SketchUp to DProfiler and then to a full-fledged BIM application. At the moment, DProfiler only looks at cost, which is important but is not the only aspect that needs to be evaluated before finalizing a design. If DProfiler can also integrate other analyses such as energy, structure, spatial requirements, and so on, it can be extremely compelling. The concept behind the application is sound—that we need to evaluate several design alternatives early on in the design process to select the one that best satisfies the most critical criteria—and it will be interesting to see how it evolves.

I have to add that it was kind of amusing to see Revit, ArchiCAD, and so on being referred to as "traditional BIM solutions." By this measure, BIM has certainly come a long way!

Other Issues Discussed

In addition to the breakout sessions, various issues were discussed during the opening and closing sessions, moderated by the AIA TAP Committee (Jim Bedrick, Stephen Hagan, Kristine Fallon, Paul Seletsky, and Tony Rinella). One of the key ones was the National BIM Standards, described in more detail in the AECbytes article, "Right Thinking About BIM and The National BIM Standards Committee." Considering that practically every office has developed their own CAD standards, the attempt with the BIM Standards is to be more proactive and to define them before implementation takes off in a big way. This would ensure some uniformity in the industry and could also guide firms in their implementation of BIM. Another issue that inevitably comes up for discussion is who will lead the BIM effort on behalf of the building owners: architects or contractors? Are architects willing to assume the risks of BIM implementation for the rewards?

The discussion then turned to owners and how aggressively they are demanding the implementation of this technology. While there weren't many building owners in attendance at TAP, the AIA is trying to spread awareness among owners and get them more involved. A differing perspective was that, owners, in fact, have been vociferously demanding the use of better technology for building better buildings faster and cheaper, and it is the architects who are at fault for not pushing the use of BIM. At the same time, insurance companies are cautioning the industry to go slow with BIM, which is to be expected, considering that they typically proceed with caution. They need to be incentivized to come up with insurance products for BIM. Another hot topic—the fee structure—came up frequently, with some architects who asked if they would be getting paid more to do BIM, while others felt that if they don't, someone else will. If architects want to retain the project leadership they have traditionally enjoyed, they must aggressively embrace the technological advancements and prove their value to building owners. In countries such as Hong Kong, owners are already asking for BIM, and the movement will soon spread to other parts of the world as well.

This is not to say that we haven't made progress. We are seeing a "technology maturity" curve and the number of architects using BIM has gone up significantly in the past year. In the session on digital collaboration described earlier, in response to a question, a good percentage of the audience indicated that they used modeling, and about half of these also acknowledged that they shared the model with engineers. The concern of the AIA is to expand the BIM movement and define the proper standards, so that it is not done in an ad-hoc manner resulting in chaos later down the road. For BIM to be used across the industry, it is important to first create the proper infrastructure for it.

One other issue that also came up frequently was the lack of representation from product manufacturers. For BIM to really succeed, the manufacturers need to embrace the technology as well and participate by supplying intelligent models of the objects they sell, so that they can simply be dragged and dropped into BIM models. But the manufacturers are reluctant to do this until there is more momentum, more demand, more BIM implementation. It's a Catch-22 situation, with no easy resolution in sight.

Analysis and Conclusions

For those who have been attending TAP conferences regularly, there was a certain amount of repetition at this conference, of the same rehashing of business issues related to BIM implementation such as contract documents, liabilities, risks, insurance, fees, and so on. As Mario Guttman remarked in his session, it felt like "Digital Groundhog Day," with the same topics being discussed over and over again. To a certain extent, this is unavoidable since the TAP conference does attract several new attendees every year—as it should!—many of which have the same concerns and questions about BIM implementation that have been raised in the past. At the same time, the challenge before the TAP Committee which organizes these conferences is how to prevent the discussion from being hung up on the same issues and steer it forward, so that the conference is worthwhile both for the regular attendees as well as the new ones.

In my opinion, the business issues related to BIM implementation will eventually get sorted out once BIM becomes more commonplace, so what is important for firms is to not get hung up on the issues and just move ahead with their implementation. There is a constant reference to the "risks" involved, which is probably holding back a lot of implementation, but I have still to see anyone clearly identify what these risks are. While there are certainly several challenges to BIM implementation—such as training on the applications, overcoming the resistance to change, learning a new way of doing things, bridging the gap between the "designers" and the "technical folks," and so on—I have yet to see BIM implementation backfire on a firm! So where, really, is the risk?

As the TAP Committee pointed out, BIM is an inevitable technology and the immediate focus of all firms should be on getting started with the implementation, if they haven't done so already. It would be useful to see more sessions at future TAP conferences that are focused on implementation tips and strategies from firms who are willing to share their insights and lessons learnt. In the past few TAP conferences, we have gone from a discussion of the technology itself to a broader discussion of the business issues and process changes involved. Perhaps it's time to get back again to the technology—not to debate about it any longer, but to see how it can best be implemented.

About the Author

Lachmi Khemlani is founder and editor of AECbytes. She has a Ph.D. in Architecture from UC Berkeley, specializing in intelligent building modeling, and consults and writes on AEC technology. She can be reached at lachmi@aecbytes.com.

Newsletters > Issue #27 > Printer-friendly format