BIM – towards universal adoption

David Mycock argues that the advent of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and the government’s determination to make it compulsory on all public sector projects heralds a new era in integrated project co-ordination – probably.

We all think we know something about BIM, but do we? Let’s recap, have a look at where we are now and where we might end up, along with the potential advantages and pitfalls we may encounter along the way.

BIM and its antecedents have been around for some time now, following its genesis in the piping industry. Typically, it involves drawing objects in 3D to form an entire building, and assigning attributes to those objects. This is parametric modelling – that is, drawing an object (such as a desk, chair or whole building) and applying data to it such as dimensions, material specifications and product numbers. The concept is not new, from the current CAD drawings packages, such as AutoCAD and MicroStation, to software from Graphisoft in the 80s, specialist packages such as StruCAD and XSteel used by steelwork fabricators, along with parametric software (including CSC’s 3D+ which emerged in the late 1990s), to Autodesk’s Revit today.

What moves us from 2D/3D CAD drawings and parametric models to BIM is the way the information is handled. This is the process side. It’s where BIM differs from previous attempts, in that it is both software and process dependent – the process being web-based data exchange and integration. It’s also where BIM becomes interesting and complex.

From a process perspective, there are similar web-based data exchange platforms for document management systems, such as Buzzsaw, SharePoint and BIW. These allow project documents to be shared electronically by all project participants, thus improving communication and the speed of response. With BIM, this would involve the project team and whole supply chain putting their information into a single model. Going further, the BIM model could be linked to the construction programme and cost data.

This platform route for improved integration is the way forward, and has its own jargon – BIM Maturity Levels. These levels purport to show how we can move from a lesser to a higher level of data integration. For instance, the government’s Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBie) is one such tool, available for collecting and holding BIM information.

All of this is intended to create a virtual model of a building where building data is fully integrated, clashes eradicated, cost and programme issues ironed out, and a fully-functional model handed to the client once construction is complete, allowing for greater regard for the full life of a building.

So what about the problems? Well, they’re potentially many and varied. Construction is a notoriously fragmented and adversarial industry, so trying to herd a jumble of different companies from diverse sectors towards universal (and unified) adoption of BIM will be difficult.

Companies planning to implement BIM will need to address the issue of different software systems (think AutoCAD versus MicroStation), deal with the different levels of integration between project teams, manage the different skill sets needed by technical staff and processes used by firms, and understand the legal and liability issues surrounding who manages the BIM information and who owns the BIM model. But surely this effort is offset by the promise of cost savings and increased margins? One of the key drivers towards the adoption of BIM is the government’s Construction Strategy, which aims to save 20 per cent on construction costs on public sector projects. While some may benefit, the likelihood is that cost and time savings associated with producing models will simply mean reduced income levels for construction companies, as savings are passed down the line. The only party likely to benefit ultimately will be the client, who will complain about the time taken to produce and integrate the model, while beating down everyone’s costs.

A further issue is the potential for confusion and conflict that can arise when different government priorities clash. For example, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) was recently awarded a grant to examine BIM implementation. At the same time, another CIC project to help upskill the industry for BIM was rejected. This smacks of bureaucratic silo thinking.

Of course, all of these issues can be overcome. They don’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to enable BIM.

The industry is likely to continue moving ever further from the traditional – and now outdated – ‘build and forget’ model, so project teams will need to get used to the idea of providing BIM data to occupiers and FM managers once the building has been handed over.

Does BIM herald a new dawn? Quite possibly, but as with all complex systems there will be both hard lessons to learn and unexpected consequences. However, if it is implemented properly, with appropriate industry-wide upskilling, then it could provide benefits beyond those currently anticipated.

Editor’s note

The NBS National BIM Library website will be officially launched at this year’s Ecobuild, held at the London ExCel. The National BIM Library will enable architects, contractors, interior designers and other construction professionals to locate and download generic BIM objects for a comprehensive range of systems and products, such as walls, windows, doors, foundations, cladding and roofs.

The service, which will be accessible online and free of charge, will be built up to become the primary source of standard and proprietary BIM objects.

 

Author David Mycock is Head of Marketing at Shepherd Gilmour, an international engineering consultancy based in Manchester, a senior national committee member of CIMCIG, the Chartered Institute of Marketing’s Construction Industry Group, and a judge of the Construction Marketing Awards.

Image: BIM Artlantis rendering by Thierry Tutin

 

Back to top