BIM: When Will It Enter “The Ours” Zone?

Stewart Carroll
COO, Beck Technology

Design and construction work―even if including what’s been called BIM 1.0 or the first generation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) technology―is like a married couple’s understanding about their money … or their children.

There’s “yours, mine and ours.”

In the AECbytes article “Proto-Building: To BIM is to Build” of May 28, John Tobin identified for us several speed bumps―make that roadblocks―to development and acceptance of a boundary-less BIM, benefiting all disciplines, all practitioners. He divided development of this technology up into BIM 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, and I borrow those designations here. He suggested that technological advancements will someday make BIM 2.0 and even a prototype-creating BIM 3.0 a reality―and so we better get ready.

Actually, in my view, it’s less about technology and more about acceptance. BIM 2.0 that allows virtual full-team digital participation is already here, but the building industry has shown great reluctance to enter into a true collaborative era―the “ours” zone. That day is coming―and it’s long overdue―but more on that later.

For now, we are in this divided arrangement of “yours and mine.” And it’s up to each of us as professionals to point the way for the ultimate collaborative potential that is offered by BIM.

The early promise of BIM―of intensive design with intelligent material estimates and scheduling data―had the potential of aiding all practitioners involved with a project. In reality, however, today’s BIM use has stopped short of the promise. BIM used in the market today helps each practitioner with its own disciplinary problems. That’s fundamentally important! The informational and graphic needs of architects are unique, different than the needs of estimators, consultants, engineers, contractors and subcontractors who are likely to work on the project as well.

The typical scenario is that one of the practitioner groups uses Revit, Bentley or some other leading software.  Advantages of accuracy, detailed data, and visual representation become superior to any other traditional methods of planning, designing and producing construction documents because of speed, preciseness of determining and making updates, resulting cost savings, and to some extent, the benefit of computerized mobility.

Architect ABC, for instance, extends to General Contractor XYZ the digital rights to view the project. Typically, however, the convenience ends there. The architect’s possession does not translate in a way that truly benefits all other practitioner groups such as the contractor, subcontractor and engineer. What is “mine” is probably not what’s “yours.”

As is all too often the case, then, the contractor sits with documents in one hand and the finger on the computer mouse poised over the architect’s BIM calculations on the other. And the process is still very sequential. If or when problems arise and even escalate along the way, the architect may make the change, but the engineer or contractor has to walk through all the details again.

Historically, the communication between the architect or engineer on the one side and the contractor and subs on the other happens by sharing documents. The data from the design tool, the estimating package, the scheduling package and a myriad of other software are not integrated. A couple of tools out there are trying to do that, but every architect organizes his or her BIM model differently and every estimator or contractor also organizes data differently.

Even if the data or digital models are shared, they are seldom reconciled and integrated for the good of the project, resulting in a disconnect. Architectural components, such as windows, doors, walls etc., are not set up to match the contractor’s definition of the same project component. As such, even if the General Contractor has access to the BIM, rework is required to align component definitions. For example, if the architectural definition of doors produces quantities of linear feet of door frame, number of glazed panels and square footage of the doors, yet the GC’s definition requires a count of specific door types, the contractor will have to recount what has been defined in the BIM.

A Catalyst whose Time has not Come

BIM has had such a profound impact on what architects, engineers and contractors are doing, it truly has become the catalyst for change in an industry that has historically been reluctant to change—as Autodesk vice president Phil Bernstein, FAIA, stated in a recent AIArchitect article.

But so far that change has been limited. What BIM has done so far is change the way that architects design and produce drawings, the way engineers design and the way contractors coordinate with subs, but has not changed the way that disciplines work with each other. Its impact thus far has primarily been within each discipline or practice.

More and more, BIM enables users to achieve a parametric 3D rendition of a building with the byproduct of creating requisite drawings and documents.  This replaces the highly error-prone and labor-intensive traditional process of creating construction documentation in which, plans, elevations, sections and details typically don’t match due to the fact that they were created as 2D disconnected drawings.  Namely, BIM has unquestionably reduced so called “coordination errors.”

BIM 1.0 has definitely created a positive impact on our industry, but while BIM 2.0 advances are a reality, the industry is still stuck in first gear. BIM 1.0’s acceptance was not transformative enough to cause “business as usual” to reach full software integration and its goal of full-team collaboration.

The future of BIM will deliver the interoperability across disciplines and practices. That day is not too far off. Various signs include the arrival of software that links the best of BIM for architects with the best of BIM for contractors. Let’s face it, many of the boundaries in our industry are actually artificial barriers caused in part by specialization. Tomorrow, the boundaries will become much more permeable and BIM will be used extensively for the sake of the entire project team, including subcontractors and even the owners and real estate decision-makers.

Architects were early BIM adopters because of their familiarity with graphic modeling software and its efficient ability to reduce the amount of drawing and re-drawing. Engineers were in line next, using similar technology. Revit Structure is designed specially for engineers. The last group to get onboard is contractors. Technology has been slow to evolve for their sakes. Clash detection capability is one benefit that has turned many contractors into believers. Software solution products are vying for the GC customer. Some offer elite data links to industry-leading information provided by RSMeans, Sage Timberline and others. These help contractors meet their own pre-construction and construction needs, as well as connect to some software platforms preferred by architects and engineers.

Part of the challenge on the construction side historically has been that contractors are not used to these tools. While there’s typically a learning curve, contractors are obvious BIM benefactors since they carry the biggest risk as “completers” of projects—BIM logically offers them the greatest potential for higher rewards in cost and time savings.

And back to the issue of GCs and subcontractors, their connection could stand some improvement that BIM can deliver.  BIM has the potential to streamline the procurement process and to impact facility management.  If contractors were to have access to the BIM and were able to embellish it with such things as warranty information, maintenance information, etc., then BIM has a life beyond the construction phase!

The Tyranny of First Impressions

In reality, BIM 1.0 actually keeps architects and contractors apart. BIM’s initial popularity has, in effect, obstructed additional steps forward for practitioner groups. There’s not a shared vision.  Both practitioners do their jobs separately and even more intensely than ever.  Why? Because each of their work paradigms shows an unwillingness to change.  Shared technology does not pay or otherwise reward an architect or contractor for upfront collaboration.  Often architects and GCs come together for a single project, and it is not financially feasible to rework or redesign the BIM components to align with estimating and scheduling systems.

In order for this day to arrive, there has to be changes to process and technology. This is the crux of the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) effort today. Consolidation in the industry would help. If architectural firms and construction firms were to merge or greatly improve their working partnership, then the benefits of BIM would evolve quicker and, more importantly, the advantages of integration would be rapidly realized industry-wide.

Promoting Cross-disciplinary Dialogue

Many in the industry recognize that BIM as it is today is not what BIM is going to be tomorrow.  The BIM of tomorrow will be cross-disciplinary; it will be highly collaborative and possibly even change the roles within integrated firms.  We are already seeing many organizations such as AGC, Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), the National BIM Standards Committee (NBIMS), etc., promoting cross-disciplinary dialogue. Technology events such as the BIM storms―where cross-disciplinary groups from around the world conceive and design buildings in a highly collaborative and highly effective manner―are proving that the technologies to facilitate this collaboration are almost there. Teams are working in design charrettes and using technologies to design, estimate costs and set a schedule at the same time, while communicating scope and impact to the owner as well.

To achieve these goals, technology needs to become highly integrated.  It needs to provide feedback to users on the impact of a change—not just the impact to design, but the impact to LEED points, or to cost, or scheduling. And as more BIM becomes integrated, the problems being solved become less disciplinary and more holistic. The tools will enable input from all project participants, and the impact of a change will be seen in real time and on the project as a whole.

The industry will then have truly integrated “yours, mine and ours.”

About the Author

Stewart Carroll is Chief Operating Officer of Beck Technology, a division of The Beck Group. He has been involved in the design and development of software designed for the A/E/C industry for more than 15 years. His experience includes work on the product Reflex as well as the successful design and development of Beck’s DESTINI, an award-winning application designed to perform engineering calculations, provide cost estimates, and provide a three-dimensional design for three- to five-story office buildings. In his current role, Mr. Carroll serves as the managing force as well as the creative mind behind the design and development of Beck’s Macro BIM software, DProfiler. In both capacities, he is charged with ensuring the integration of the intellectual capital available at Beck from the architecture, construction, and development divisions and applying that knowledge to the development of the BIM software.

Note: The views expressed in Viewpoint articles are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AECbytes.

Viewpoints > Issue #40 > Printer-friendly format