BIM Data Sharing is for Transparency, but will it succeed?

One facet of BIM Level 2 is to set up of a Common Data Environment - CDE. In the setting of the Government focus for BIM Level 2, the CDE is listed by the business in the Employer's Information Requirements - EIR. This information is to a great extent, although not completely, related to the physical asset and choices the employers have to make during the growth of the facility.

Tier 1 contractual worker are exceptionally fascinated for utilizing the given data to smoother the construction process, both at the commencement stage and for managing facility. New developments are inclusive of digitizing the archives in forms attached to a BIM model. Models are connected to the programing software to create 3D visualization for clash detection and construction sequencing. Date and location specific data is recorded in the field, and at the same time one can also investigate the models for their data history.

It’s not a new thing. Contractors have so far kept all records and recorded the design developments through variations. The catch here, however is, how BIM can contribute in bringing transparency between all stakeholders. The root of BIM is “the single source of truth”, and the industry recognizes that information transparency is more than important, than ever. But the truth is that it’s a collective practice, where stakeholders look at it in their own commercial interest. The data or information is used in a very non-collaborative “need to know” basis and confidential as well at times.

It is hard to perceive how things will change; as there will be a discrepancy between records that the contractors require for their own reasons, and the data an employer might request to be kept in the CDE. In any case, if the source of information is solid and information is promptly accessible, it would help us to reduce the irregularity of records, which in previous cases would have prevented us from having a flawless picture of events in case of problems.

Project records are held in a CDE with access granted to any and every stakeholder to the project, or a committee will be asked to resolve the disputes, do you think it is a far-fetched possibility? How soon can we initiate from one source of truth held in the CDE and focus on resolving challenges from a common base?

For once-in-a-lifetime, tier 1 contractors employed with smaller projects, the information may not be recorded. But if larger tier 1 contractors bring together these practices as a set standard and make it a mandate for their supply chain to follow, the accessibility of data will become much more common, and the challenges of access and how it can be used in events of disagreements, will be a real problem for the industry.

BIM Level 2; Developing Coordination & Collaboration or Causing Complexity

One of the prime expectations of UK BIM mandate was, through improved communication and collaboration; it will bring greater clarity to projects. It would also enable better decisions and reduce risks, resulting in greater certainty of successful delivery. It will standardize procedures and the way information is provided and shared. But, holding it back is the very fact that every design practice and contractor has a diverse setup.

Expectations from BIM mandate was that it would drive increased collaboration and initiate a different set of behavior within building construction projects. Along with this anticipated change, a suite of standard documents - PAS was also designed to unify the approach across the industry. PAS 1192-2:2013 is a set of specifications for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling. This was to ensure that almost everyone nearly speaks the same language when it comes to BIM. 

So what needs to be assessed is, has PAS suite and some of those beliefs, helped the building construction industry to collaborate more effectively and efficiently or is complicating the situation furthermore?

As a matter of fact, architects, contractors, surveyors and several other stakeholders are still struggling to interpret the documents and the protocols. Some of them are experiencing BIM level 2 anxieties. They also fear, if they are appropriately positioned to implement BIM level 2.

LOD is sometimes interpreted as Level of Detail instead of Level of Development. This Specification uses the concept of Levels of Development. Level of Detail is essentially how much detail is included in the model element, whereas Level of Development is the degree to which the element’s geometry and attached information has been thought through. It is the degree to which project team members may rely on the information when using the model. In essence, Level of Detail can be thought of as input to the element, while Level of Development is reliable output.

Level 2 BIM has been presented more technically challenging than what it actually is, says Bhushan Avsatthi, Director (AEC - Division) - Hi Tech iSolutions LLP.

The challenge is that none of our clients have the time to sit and read all the government standards and documents to ensure they tick every single box as it is massively complicated. We, as BIM service provider firm, are sent across papers on BIM or are invited for seminars and conferences, to navigate professionals from the industry. We are confident of achieving all the principles of Level 2, and it is our constant endeavor to stay complaint to the minutest detail written in government documents.

We aim to engage at the client’s executive board level and work towards a holistic approach to define business case and strategy to embrace the value that BIM can provide and maximize benefits, yours occupants, and ours.

Though we believe and follow the standard driven approach, we strongly feel that these standards could be better coordinated. Several PAS and BS 1192 documents are greatly articulated, but they are missing on the fines in terms of a progression path that can link together all the RIBA stages. Is it advisable, leaving it out for the project teams to work it out on their own, is something which I am not very sure of.

What industry needs right now is a guide or a navigation tool that can link all the five key documents from BS 1192 to PAS 1192:5, each of which are referring to other BS standards, or are referring to different set of information that you will have to look out for, on you own.

Source

              i.        BIM is just a tick box activity and lesser or no changes underneath

             ii.        BIM will add to complexities, instead of showing any real improvements

            iii.        BIM project benefits are likely to materialize only for experienced patrons

           iv.        BIM’s effectiveness in the design stage proved successfully

            v.        BIM is completely leveraged by almost every contractor in the construction stage

           vi.        Efficiencies from BIM in the operational phase are clearly visible

          vii.        BIM will prove to be a facilitator for enhanced and effective collaboration

         viii.        BIM will help achieve better margins and/or productivity

I am afraid that the standards have not had the desired effect of unifying suppliers approach to BIM. The reason is that everyone’s level of understanding is different, and until that is resolved, BIM level 2 is not going to happen as expected.

While discussing this with one of a colleague architect from the industry, he said they get affected at the time of handover. They as an architectural firm, receive different models from different BIM modelers, engineers and contractors. All these models come in with different levels of graphical detail and level of component information. The models that we receive are not standardized, however; we are compelled to utilize the information it holds to carry out post-handover editing to attain standardization, he added.

Would it be wrong to say that BIM has achieved the success in spite of the standards, not because of them? There still are firms who work with their teams, not to follow the PAS 1192 documents, but to decide practically as to what they are going to do, what worked in their favor and what did not. None of the PAS documents can make people understand practically what they are supposed to do, in order to execute a BIM project, or does it?

Some building construction industry experts have all together a different counter-BIM argument to this episode. They are of the opinion that the benefits of BIM seem quite minimal if you look at them with a mindset, that most of the key design processes would be already in place. 

Why should we be dependent on BIM for our already set processes including need for consultants to collaborate? Our contracts are all equipped to create that environment to provide 3D models and run clash detection. 

Our CAFM systems are already populated with asset data. And not to forget that we have mastered these, with decades of experience. BIM walks in just to bring in all these disciplines and process under one umbrella. Client’s point of view says no benefit from BIM, however; BIM consultants are experiencing benefits out of it - big time.

Conclusion

Improved collaboration is what BIM is for. Why do we need software to help us do that? How beneficial and advisable it would be to bring teams together, who aren’t working together towards solutions?