BIM4Real Summary
A workshop looking at project delivery under BIM Level 2 Maturity Requirements
This document outlines the outcomes of the event held in June 2013. Including the identified challenges and consensus points for project kick-off, design delivery and construction and operation.


Contents

BIM4Real Summary

Contents

What Is This Document?

Document Scope

Authors and Contributors

Event Summary

What was BIM4Real?

What Was It About?

Discussion Areas

Session 1: Project Kick-Off

Executive Summary

Consensus

Suggestions

Main Challenge Areas

Session 2: Design Delivery

Executive Summary

Consensus

Suggestions

Main Challenge Areas

Session 3: Construction and Operation

Executive Summary

Consensus

Suggestions

Main Challenge Areas

Appendix: Element Ownership

Appendix: Attendee List

Document History

What Is This Document?

This document has been produced to outline the outcomes of the BIM4Real event. It is hoped that it will assist in the understanding of what challenges the UK Construction industry currently face. This document particularly focuses on thedelivery of BIM Maturity Level 2 projects as stipulated by the UK Government by the year 2016 and currently by some private clients.

Document Scope

This document does not seek to define terms such as Building Information Modelling or BIM Maturity Level 2. Nor does it seek to define the intention of protocol documents. It is intended to be read by those familiar already with these terms and documents. If not familiar, documents such as PAS1192-2:2013, BS1192:2007 and the AEC Protocols make for an excellent starting point. Websites owned by the BIM Task Groups, the CIC, RIBA, BIMTalk (CIBSE), the Landscape Institute and the BSRIA contain a wealth of information.

This document is an event summary document. It records what was discussed and stated at the actual event by those in attendance. It should not be read as an approved best practice or protocol document. Nor does it have any legal standing.

Authors and Contributors

This document was written using the notes primarily taken by the committee and chair people as a result of the excellent discussion in which the entire events audience (see appendix) participated.

This document was authored and contributed to by;

Main Author / Rob Clark / Consultant at Excitech Ltd
BIM4Real Committee / Graham Stewart / Associate and Head of BIM for Structures at Ramboll
Ray Purvis / Associate & CAD/BIM Manager at Atkins
BIM4Real Chair Person / Carl Collins / CAD Manager at Arup Associates
Casey Rutland / Associate Director at Arup Associates
Mark Stodgell / IT Director at Pozzoni
Paul Shillcock / Principal Consultant at Operam
Rob Jackson / Associateat Bond Bryan Architects

Event Summary

What was BIM4Real?

A Workshop
BIM4Real was a workshop held on June 19th 2013 at Ramboll’s offices in central London. Around 60 people attended and were split into 5 different tables. Each table was chaired. These chair people both guided the discussion and summarised each session.

BIM4Real was supported by Excitech Ltd, Ramboll and Atkins.

Who Attended?
The event was attended by some of the most technically competent people from the UK Construction industry. These represented everyone from sole traders, through small enterprises to large consultancies. In this mix were structural engineers, architects, building services engineers, managers, contractors, clients and consultants. The BIM4Real event was an invite only event; with a selection committee ensuring a diverse range of people were in attendance.

What Was It About?

Project Delivery
The workshop focused on the delivery of a sample project, in this case a Hardware Store in the city of Shrewsbury in the UK. The project and client were completely fictional.

The Employers Information Requirements
The fictional client was represented as a reasonably well informed employer whom had produced an Employer Information Requirement document. This stated the employers BIM Maturity Level 2 requirements. These requirements included the need to design and construct employers facility in a quality assured collaborative manner. In this case the PAS1192-2:2013 specification was referenced to as a process to follow. This was intended to reduce waste by delivering a more efficient build process. There was also a documented requirement to handover asset information including specification and operational data.

Project Team
Those attending were asked to act like they were a project team. In three separate stages, Project Kick-Off, Design Delivery and Construction and Operation they had to discuss and, if possible, define how they would act to deliver the Employers Information Requirements. This document outlines the outcomes from these discussions and outputs from them. It focuses on where consensus was reached and suggestions made and where there was confusion and thus challenges to resolve.

Had To Be Real
Everybodywas asked to relate the delivery of this project to known ways of working. This included limitations in organisational capability andunderstood process as well as software and hardware capability. To assist in this, each group had access to a significant amount of information including protocol documents such as PAS1192:2 and laptops with software and example models.

Discussion Areas

The chair people were asked to target outcomes in the following areas in each of the three stages;

Project Kick-Off

  1. Employers Information Requirements Response - Understanding of how the team would go about setting up the project in response to the Employers requests
  2. Delivery Method - The team’s delivery method and how they would document this. Also who would document this?
  3. Roles - Understanding of roles within the team. Who would be responsible for what?
  4. CDE- How a common data environment should be established and managed.

Design Delivery

  1. Who Does What? Looking at particular design scenarios. What is the best method for the team to deal with them in a collaborative way while meeting the employer requirements?
  2. Traditional vs. New Process - Looking at the requirements of BIM Maturity Level 2, what is new from what we currently do? What can be tweaked to meet requirement? What just works already?
  3. Coordinated Design - How do we model to ensure the entire project requirement, including construction and operation are met?
  4. Information Exchange - What is the best controlled method to distribute this information to enable collaboration?

Construction and Operation

  1. Bridging The Gap - Ensuring effective handover of design space BIM’s to the contractors and building operators.
  2. Interference Checking - Defining responsibility for model interference checking, reporting and resolution management
  3. Quantification - Defining workflow for the costing and quantification of a project.
  4. Construction Management - Integration methodologies.

Session 1: Project Kick-Off

Executive Summary

This session achieved a number of consensus points, but also it was clear that on issues of roles, responsibilities and infrastructure set up, like common data environments, significant confusion remains.

It was pleasing that when asked more than half of the room are using or adopting BS1192:2007 workflows. This will mean a greater level of ability to work collaboratively through standardising the transmittal of documentation.

There seemed to be general acceptance that the new PAS1192-2:2013 Information Management protocol contained useful processes for establishing model driven collaborative projects. In particular, the suggested use of the Employer Information Requirement document was seen as worthwhile and useful. While there was debate as to how the response should actually be shown, there was also acceptance of the need to deliver a single BIM execution plan. In the discussion, some very useful comments came out in regards to what should be in the Employers Information Requirements and BIM Execution Plan documents.

Interestingly, there was little worry in the room with regards to liability and insurance. It was felt that project indemnity covers these requirements. There was some good discussion around model ownership and the contractual requirements covering this. It was felt by many that caution was needed in how the model licence is communicated. There seemed to be good consensus that the client would be able to fully utilise the model for theirrequirements providing it was for the project asset alone.

There was still significant confusion over roles and responsibilities, including the understanding of the Information Manager and the Task Team Managers. Further how the BIM Managers and BIM Coordinators roles fitted into this, if at all. There were also question marks over roles such as the production of the Federated Model. There seems to be clear need for much greater clarity here. This was again discussed in Session 3, Construction and Operation.

Also, the common data environment, a requirement of BS1192:2007 seemed to still be causing some significant confusion, especially on the subject of who would be responsible for setting it up and most importantly; administering it.

There are a number of continuing question marks over specification systems such as Uniclass 2.0 and New Rules of Measurement (NRM) as well as information registers such as COBie, which need to be addressed.

Some of thepoints presented here are in context to the Employers Information Requirement document presented for the fictional Shrewsbury Hardware Store project at the event. This document can be downloaded from the BIM4Real website,

Consensus

Process

  1. BS1192:2007 Workflows - In excess of half of the room (show of hands) are actively or currently are adopting BS1192:2007 workflows.

The Employers Information Requirements and the BIM Execution Plan

  1. Worthwhile - The Employers Information Requirements document is worthwhile and good starting point to a project briefing.
  2. Plain English - The Employers Information Requirements must be written in plain English and contain questions to qualify ability against the requirement.
  3. Accessible - The accepted format of Employers Information Requirements documents should be easy to follow, understandable and scalable for clients of projects of any complexity or size.
  4. FM Teams Involvement - The Facilities Management team should be involved in the initial project set up.
  5. BIM Execution Plan - TheEmployers Information Requirements document should naturally inform the contents of the BIM Execution Plan
  6. Single BIM Execution Plan - The team’s response to the Employers Information Requirements Document should be a single BIM Execution Plan.

Roles and Responsibilities

  1. BIM Manager - This role is defined as an office management role with tasks including giving advice on best practice, provision of content, assessing capability and training and reviewing progress in relation to the project goals.

Model Ownership

  1. Liability Through Project Indemnity - The liability of the project should be managed through project indemnity. Mervyn Richards went on to explain later that insurance companies are happy with the CIC advice.

Suggestions

OwnershipPlease note the Ownership section is presented as understood by the attendees of the conference only. It does not form any form of contractual or legal advice.

  1. Model Ownership - At the event, it was suggested a number of times that the “client owns the model”. Although there was some objection to this statement, including, “the client does not own the model, they are licenced to use it for the intended purpose, and the ownership resides with the author. If you buy a book, you do not own the rights to that book, you only own it to readand that is the licence you enter into. To state that the client owns the model is to imply that they can use it for whatever purpose they like, which they cannot.” It was pointed out the new CIC BIM Protocol does cover this in Clause 6, however it was felt by some that the current wording would need to be revisited. Ultimately, there seemed to be consensus that the client would be able to unhindered utilise the model for operational purposes for the project asset. However there is concern how this particular point is conveyed. Typically this concern lies in implying that the model could be utilised on other similar construction projects the client undertakes.

Process

  1. Employers Information Requirements /BIM Execution Plan / Master Information Delivery Plan- “This should be consolidated into a single document” Although it was also questioned how this would work in practice, “the Employers Information Requirements are written by the client, BIM Execution Plan by the 'Team'. The Master Information Delivery Plan is sometimes a joint effort between the client and the team”

The Employers Information Requirements and the BIM Execution Plan

  1. Timeframe - The Employer Information Requirements “should contain time frames for delivery”
  2. More Information - The Employers Information Requirements “should contain more information regarding a client’s deliverables” and “why” they need certain information.
  3. Product Register - Product preferences should be included.
  4. Sustainability Information - The Employers Information Requirements should contain sustainability aspirations of the client.
  5. Information Delivery Plan - The Employers Information Requirements should contain a plan of “who will supply what”
  6. Standard Clauses - “In a normal project, this happens then, that happens then” which gives you a clear opportunity to change these to show how this differs from a normal project.
  7. Digital Plan of Work-The Employers Information Requirements should make clear what asset data is required at what stage. For example “I want these 10 fields of COBie data at data drop 1, and these 5 at Data Drop 2”

Asset Information

  1. Make COBie friendly - COBie data needs a “client friendly interface”

Roles and Responsibilities

  1. Information Manager - Some defined this as a client representative that will check models, equivalent to Project Quantity Surveyor (PSQ). It was noted that in 3.1 of the CPIx Post Contract Execution Plan this role is to “enforce the Project BIM Standard” and ensure delivery of the Information requested in the Employers Information Requirements”. It was suggested by some that the key words are “ensure delivery”.
  2. “Roles Are Not People” - It was suggested one of the main confusion areas in roles and responsibilities is that the roles are not defined by who does them, but the tasks themselves. Therefore in some instances the same person can wear many hats, whereas in other instances more than one person may be required to fill a role on a project.

Main Challenge Areas

Roles and Responsibilities

  1. Roles - There is still a significant amount of confusion about what these roles are and how they are defined. Who does what? The industry seems to be seeking clarification here, particularly for the Information Manager and Task Team Manager. It was suggested by some that these roles are however clearly explained, for example the Information Manager is listed in the CIC BIM Protocol
  2. Task Team Manager Push Back - This is a role in PAS1192:2013 process. Many believing the new title is not required and that it is a BIM Coordinators or Model Managers role. Some suggested that this was one of Data Validation, and that this person(s) would be responsible for ensuring models are shared effectively.
  3. Federated Model Responsibility -Lack of clarity on who is responsible for production of federated models. It was suggested the main contractor should be by some. This was discussed in greater detail in Session 3, Construction and Operation.
  4. CDE Responsibility - “CDE should be provided by the main contractor”, “CDE should be hosted by the team”, “We took it that we would host the CDE”. General confusion on who is responsible and what it needs to look like. Although, equally it was suggested this is no different to existing process and that there is no “one fits all” solution.

Standards and Protocols

  1. Industry Foundation Class - “Its equivalent to print portals, you don’t know what is going to be spat out”. It was stated that IFCs are improving “monthly” and that the authoring and importing software is more likely to blame than anything, however there continues to be a trust issue. However equally others have suggested there is nothing wrong with the IFC format and that we should be utilising it as an interoperability standard. It was also suggested the onus was on everybody to push software vendors for improvements.
  2. Uniclass 2.0 “Aspirational” - “They are releasing all of the tables except the ones you use”. You need to understand its limits. “The BIM Execution Plan should not be afraid to challenge the use of Uniclass”.
  3. Frequency of Information Exchange - There was significant debate on when information should be transferred and in what manner. It was felt that daily had its advantages in collaborative workflow, especially when working in the same company. Some even live sync models. However some felt once of week reduced the risk of abortive work.

Session 2: Design Delivery

Executive Summary

This session focused on the actual authoring and delivery of a design Building Information Model. This model would usually contain information from the Architectural, Building Services, Structural, Civil, Infrastructure and Landscaping disciplines, and perhaps the suppliers. The session focused on how efficiently this could be delivered, including how we could collaboratively design shared elements including stairs, openings, building service connections and civil coordination.

There was no consensus when it came to specific known issues of model element collaboration. There is no commonly understood process, be it formal or informal. Nor was it suggested that there was any kind of industry level protocol to address this. This should be a concern. It could lead to wastage, duplication of effort, design and coordination errors as well as cause problems with outputs such as COBie and Federated Models.