A number of BIM ThinkSpace Episodes are now available in Italian. These translations follow a collaborative effort with Mr Lorenzo Nissim and his colleagues at the Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi). I truly appreciate their efforts in sharing the BIM Episodes with a wider international audience.
Please note that both Italian and Spanish translations cover all Figures (images) and are true to the original with the exception of a few terms/phrases.
The below Episodes are available in Italian on the iBIMi website (last updated Aug 26, 2015):
Ever since the BIM wave struck the industry’s shores, there have been two intriguingly related discussions covering its drivers and its deliverables. The first discussion (or open question) is which industry stakeholder stands to benefit most from the wide deployment of object-based tools, procedures and protocols? Are facility owners the ones who will receive all the benefits[1]? Or is it the contractors/builders who will be reaping most of the rewards? What about architects, engineers and other designers; aren’t they the ones to really benefit from BIM?
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The second discussion is which stakeholder is or should be leading [2] the industry-wide implementation drive? Should the architect lead by being the first to invest in relevant technologies and to develop collaboration workflows? Or, should the client drive construction innovation [3] through defined protocols or performance metrics? But isn’t it a fact that specialty sub-contractors (ducting specialists, steel detailers, etc…) were the first– for varied reasons – to jump onto the ‘elemental 3D’ train?
The jury is still out on both questions and there are a lot of facts mixed with an equal measure of theories (including conspiracy-flavoured ones) floating around. This post is not about analysing ‘who should benefit’, ‘how should the benefits be distributed’ or ‘who should lead’ but it is more about a set of personal observations over a period of many years [4].
These observations are NOT based on rigorous research and are thus exploratory until proven right or wrong through formal investigations [5]. However, it may be beneficial to expose these observations hoping to encourage others to provide their own. To that end, I’ve compiled my readings, thoughts [6] and practical experiences into the below image:
Figure 1. Industry BIM Leadership vs. Expected BIM Benefits v1.0
The above image explores the relationship between two variables: industry BIM LEADERSHIP and expected BIM BENEFITS. Industry stakeholders are shown clustered around their respective Project Lifecycle Phase [7]: Design [D], Construction [C] and Operation [O]. Until a more formal investigation is conducted to confirm (or refute) the above, it is intriguing to me how those who stand to benefit the most are not the same as those who are actually leading the pack.
[1] The benefits of using BIM concepts and technologies have been sufficiently documented by countless others; there’s no need to repeat them here. For a taste of these benefits, please check here.
[2] BIM leadership is a loose term describing actions taken (not words) including investment in BIM software, development of workflow protocols, engaging with others for the purposes of model-based collaboration, plus many other factors.
[4] For those concerned about context, the Visual Knowledge Model (VKM) provided above is based on informal yet informed ‘reflective learning’ (Derek, Svetlana, Janice, Frank, & Christophe, 2008) of the BIM domain within the Australian market from 2001-2010.
[5] The VKM may (or may not) be descriptive or predicative of other markets and durations.
[6] This VKM was first labelled BIM Innovation vs. BIM Benefits. Credit for some of the underlying concepts goes to Dr Guillermo Aranda-Mena (RMIT University) and from him to Jon Anderson (Hive Engineering).
[7] To understand Project Lifecycle Phases, please refer to BIM Episode 10.
After introducing the basic differences between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity in Episode 11, and briefly discussing the many available and relevant maturity models in Episode 12, this post introduces a new specialized tool to measure BIM performance: the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI).
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
As an additional reminder, BIM Capability is the basic ability to perform a task or deliver a BIM service/ product. BIM Capability Stages (or BIM Stages) define the minimum BIM requirements - the major milestones that need to be reached by a team or an organization as it implements BIM technologies and concepts (Refer to Episode 8 or Figure 1 below). Having a ‘measuring tape’ to establish BIM capability is important because it is a quick yet accurate assessment of an organization’s ability to deliver BIM services. For example, using Capability as a metric, we can safely establish that an organization at Stage 3 is able to deliver more BIM services to a client or project-partner than an organization at Stage 1 or 2:
Figure 1. The Three BIM Capability Stages (replaced - latest version can be found here)
However, since BIM Capability Stages are established when minimum requirements are met; they cannot assess abilities (or lack of) beyond these minimum requirement. As a case in point, when using the Capability metric, two organizations using Tekla to primarily generate model-based steel details are said to be at BIM Stage 1. This is a useful bit of information because it sets these two organizations apart from all others still using CAD but tells us very little about their delivery speed, data richness or modelling quality. In fact, the two organizations may well be many experience-years apart without that being detected by the Capability scale. That’s why another metric (Maturity) is needed to assess and report on significant variations within service delivery and their underlying causes.
The term ‘BIM Maturity’ refers to the quality, repeatability and degrees of excellence of BIM services. In other words, BIM Maturity is the more advanced ability to excel in performing a task or delivering a BIM service/ product. Without measuring these qualities, there is no way of differentiating between ‘real’ abilities to deliver BIM services form blatant BIM wash.
To address this issue, the BIM Maturity Index[1] (BIMMI) has been developed by investigating and then integrating several maturity models from different industries[2]. BIMMI is similar to many Capability Maturity Models (CMM) discussed in Episode 11 but reflects the specifics of BIM technologies, processes and policies.
BIMMI has five distinct Maturity Levels: (a) Initial/ Ad-hoc, (b) Defined, (c) Managed, (d) Integrated and (e) Optimized. In general, the progression from lower to higher levels of BIM Maturity indicates (i) better control through minimizing variations between targets and actual results, (ii) better predictabilityand forecasting by lowering variability in competency, performance and costs and (iii) greater effectiveness in reaching defined goals and setting new more ambitious ones[3 & 4]. Figure 2 below visually summarizes the five Maturity Levels or “evolutionary plateaux"[5] followed by a brief description of each level:
Figure 2. The Five Maturity Levels (depicted at BIM Stage 1)
Maturity Level a (Initial orAd-hoc): BIM implementation is characterized by the absence of an overall strategy and a significant shortage of defined processes and policies. BIM software tools are deployed in a non-systematic fashion and without adequate prior investigations and preparations. BIM adoption is partially achieved through the ‘heroic’ efforts of individual champions – a process that lacks the active and consistent support of middle and senior management. Collaboration capabilities (if achieved) are typically incompatible with those of project partners and occur with little or no pre-defined process guides, standards or interchange protocols. There is no formal resolution of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities.
Maturity Level b (Defined): BIM implementation is driven by senior managers’ overall vision. Most processes and policies are well documented, process innovations are recognized and business opportunities arising from BIM are identified but not yet exploited. BIM heroism starts to fade in importance as competency increases; staff productivity is still unpredictable. Basic BIM guidelines are available including training manuals, workflow guides and BIM delivery standards. Training requirements are well-defined and are typically provided only when needed. Collaboration with project partners shows signs of mutual trust/respect among project participants and follows predefined process guides, standards and interchange protocols. Responsibilities are distributed and risks are mitigated through contractual means.
Maturity Level c (Managed): The vision to implement BIM is communicated and understood by most staff. BIM implementation strategy is coupled with detailed action plans and a monitoring regime. BIM is acknowledged as a series of technology, process and policy changes which need to be managed without hampering innovation. Business opportunities arising from BIM are acknowledged and used in marketing efforts. BIM roles are institutionalized and performance targets are achieved more consistently. Product/service specifications similar to AIA’s Model Progression Specifications[6] or BIPS’ information levels[7] are adopted. Modelling, 2D representation, quantification, specifications and analytical properties of 3D models are managed through detailed standards and quality plans. Collaboration responsibilities, risks and rewards are clear within temporary project alliances or longer-term partnerships.
Maturity Level d (Integrated): BIM implementation, its requirements and process/ product innovation are integrated into organizational, strategic, managerial and communicative channels. Business opportunities arising from BIM are part of team, organization or project-team’s competitive advantage and are used to attract and keep clients. Software selection and deployment follows strategic objectives, not just operational requirements. Modelling deliverables are well synchronized across projects and tightly integrated with business processes. Knowledge is integrated into organizational systems; stored knowledge is made accessible and easily retrievable[8]. BIM roles and competency targets are imbedded within the organization. Productivity is now consistent and predictable. BIM standards and performance benchmarks are incorporated into quality management and performance improvement systems. Collaboration includes downstream players and is characterized by the involvement of key participants during projects’ early lifecycle phases.
Maturity Level e (Optimized): Organizational and project stakeholders have internalized the BIM vision and are actively achieving it[9]. BIM implementation strategy and its effects on organizational models are continuously revisited and realigned with other strategies. If alterations to processes or policies are needed, they are proactively implemented. Innovative product/process solutions and business opportunities are sought-after and followed-through relentlessly. Selection/use of software tools is continuously revisited to enhance productivity and align with strategic objectives. Modelling deliverables are cyclically revised/ optimized to benefit from new software functionalities and available extensions. Optimization of integrated data, process and communication channels is relentless. Collaborative responsibilities, risks and rewards are continuously revisited and realigned. Contractual models are modified to achieve best practices and highest value for all stakeholders. Benchmarks are repetitively revisited to insure highest possible quality in processes, products and services.
...
In a future post, I’ll shed more light on the detailed BIM Competencies[10] that Capability and Maturity tools actually measure. For now, I’ll provide a sample BIM Performance Assessment summary generated using both metrics. Please note that - although the assessment below is based on my consultancy work - it has been significantly altered so that the ‘assessed’ organization cannot be identified. I’ve also removed most Performance Achievements (the useless positives), focused on Performance Challenges (the beneficial negatives) and added some explanatory notes [enclosed in brackets].
Sample Performance Assessment – Executive Summary
“...upon concluding a preliminary assessment of [organization name], the overall organizational BIM Performance has been tentatively established at 1a [Capability Stage 1, Maturity Level a] pending the provision of [specific artefacts]...
The [organization name] has been established at Capability Stage 1 [...because it] has actively employed [BIM software tool name] to generate [X number of projects] over the past [Y months/years] at a [utilization rate of Z%]...[other metrics]...none of these projects were collaborative with the exception of [pilot project name]...
The [organization name] has been established at Maturity Level a based on [a specific Maturity scoring system]....BIM Performance Achievements have been detailed in [document name] while BIM Performance Challenges have been detailed in [document name]...below is a summary of these Performance Challenges [grouped under the three main types of BIM Competencies]:
Technology: Usage of software applications is unmonitored and unregulated [different software tools are used although they generate very similar deliverables]. Software licence numbers are misaligned to staff requirements. 3D Models are mostly relied upon to only generate accurate 2D drawings [the data richness within the model is not being exploited]. Data usage and storage are not well defined. Hardware specifications are generally adequate but are non-uniform. Some computers fall well-below confirmed staff skills and their expected BIM deliverables [equipment replacement and upgrades are mostly treated as cost items - postponed whenever possible and committed-to only when unavoidable]. With respect to Networks, currently adopted solutions are not well integrated into the workflow [individuals and teams use whatever tools at hand to communicate and share files]. While there is an Intranet with a dedicated BIM section, the content is mostly static and not well suited to harvest, store and share knowledge [very few staff have administrative rights (or motivation) to upload information to the intranet].
Process:Senior leaders/managers have varied visions about BIM, and its implementation is conducted without a consistent overall strategy [as typical at this maturity level, BIM is treated as a technology stream with minimal consideration for its process and policy implications]. Change resistance is evident among staff [and possibly wide-spread amongst middle management]. The workplace environment is not recognized as a factor in increasing staff satisfaction/motivation [found to be not conducive to productivity – think of noise, glare and ergonomics]. While knowledge is recognized as an organizational asset, it is mainly shared between staff in an informal fashion [through oral tips, techniques and lessons learned].
Business opportunities arising from BIM are not well acknowledged. BIM objects [components, parts or families] are not consistently available in adequate numbers or quality. 3D model deliverables [as BIM products] suffer from too high, too low or inconsistent levels of detail. At the time of this assessment, it appears that more importance is given to [visual] quality of 2D representations than is given to 3D model accuracy [also, products and services offered by the organization represent a fraction of the capabilities inherent within the software tools employed]. There are no [overall] modelling quality checks or formal audit procedures.
BIM Projects are conducted using undocumented and thus inconsistent practices [there are no project initiation or closure protocols]. Staff competency levels are unmonitored by [and thus unknown to] management, BIM roles need clarification [roles are currently ambiguous] and team structures pre-date BIM. Staff training is not well structured and workflows are not well understood [in one instance, staff were not systematically inducted into BIM processes; in another, were confused about workflows and ‘who to go to’ for technical and procedural assistance].
Performance is unpredictable [management cannot predict BIM project duration or HR costs] and productivity appears to still depend on champions’ efforts within teams. A mentality of ‘shortcuts’ [working around the system] has been detected. Performance may be inconsistent as it is neither monitored nor reported in any systematic fashion [as typical at this Maturity Level, the organization had islands of concentrated BIM productivity separated by seas of BIM idleness/confusion].
Policy:The organization does not yet document its detailed BIM standards or workflows. There are no institutionalized quality controls for 3D models or 2D representations. The BIM training policies are not documented [current training protocols are out-dated] and auxiliary educational mediums are not provided to staff [training DVDs and the like]. Contractually, there is no BIM-specific risk identification or mitigation policy.”
The above assessment summary may not provide a glossy image of an aspiring BIM-enabled organization. However, such a list of challenges – pointed and revealing as it is - will help the organization’s management to identify where it needs to invest time and energy to enhance its BIM performance.
In summary, understanding Capability, Maturity and how to use both metrics to assess BIM Competencies can assist AECO stakeholders to determine their overall BIM performance levels. Once performance assessments are made, performance improvements will soon follow.
Updated Oct 23, 2015: A video is now available explaining the Point of Adoption model on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
Updated May 10, 2016: The model is now published as "Succar, B. and Kassem, M. (2016), Building Information Modelling: Point of Adoption, CIB World Congress, Tampere Finland, May 30 - June 3, 2016" - download: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA9
[1] Note that I opted to use the term BIM Maturity Index rather than Model to avoid confusion.
[2] Succar, B. (2009) Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. IN Underwood, J. & Isikdag, U. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing.
[3] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4); pages 272-278
[4] McCormack, K., Ladeira, M. B., & Oliveira, M. P. V. d. (2008), Supply chain maturity and performance in Brazil. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4; pages 272-282
[6] Refer to 2008 AIA California Council, Model Progression Specifications (http://bit.ly/AIAMPS 70KB PDF document)
[7] Refer to 2008 Danish Government’s BIPS, Digital Construction 3D Working Method http://bit.ly/BIPS3D 2.2MB PDF)
[8] Refer to the 4 levels in knowledge retention in Arif, M. et al. (2009), Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1); pages 92-108.
[9] Nightingale, D.J. and J.H. Mize (2002), Development of a Lean Enterprise Transformation Maturity Model. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 3(1): p. 15.
[10] A definition of BIM Competencies has been provided in Episode 12 (endnote 2). You can also use the blog’s custom search engine to find it.
After introducing the general differences between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity in Episode 11 , I’ll briefly discuss some of the currently available and applicable maturity models[1]. The intention is to understand what other organisations and individuals have already achieved in this space and try to pin-point an appropriate performance-measurement model that can be adopted or modified to assess BIM competencies [2].
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
Why is this important? If BIM implementations by teams and organizations are to achieve the much touted increase in productivity, these implementations need to be measured, compared against some sort of industry benchmarks and – most importantly – independently certified. Without measurement, organizations offering design, construction or operations’ services have no basis on which to improve their processes and deliverables. Without benchmarks and certificates, clients aiming to employ these organizations have no consistent way of understanding their BIM competencies.
It is really a no-brainer that the AECO industry needs a specialized tool to assess BIM implementations in order to identify real BIM abilities from flagrant BIM wash. What requires real thought is [ONE] what BIM ‘metrics’ should this tool measure, [TWO] how to perform these measurements, and [THREE] how to certify measurement results so they can be trusted and depended upon for selecting project partners and/or improving BIM performance. This lengthy post will address a small part of the first question...
The initial step in identifying suitable metrics would be through searching for an existing and suitable performance measurement tool - rather than developing a new one from scratch - and then improve upon it. So, let’s have a quick look at some existing and applicable tools:
Applicable Maturity Models and Tools
A ‘maturity model’ is simply a set of performance improvement levels that can be achieved by an organisation or a project team. There are many maturity models which are relevant to our quest but I’ll only mention a few of them below:
1
COBIT, Control Objects for Information and related Technology – Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) and the IT Governance Institute (ITGI) - weblink.
I-CMM, Interactive Capability Maturity Model developed as part of the National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Version 1 Part 1 - a project of the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), buildingSMARTalliance™ - weblink.
5
Indiana University BIM Proficiency Matrix - weblink (MS Excel File)
LESAT, Lean Enterprise Self-Assessment Tool - Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - weblink
8
P3M3, Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model – Office of Government Commerce (UK) - weblink
9
P-CMM®,People Capability Maturity Model v2 – Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Melon - weblink
10
(PM)², Project Management Process Maturity Model - Kwak & Ibbs (2002) [5]
11
SPICE, Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises - Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford – Hutchinson & Finnemore (1999) [6]
12
Supply Chain Management Process Maturity Modeland Business Process Orientation (BPO) maturity model - Lockamy III & McCormack (2004) [7]
...
...
Table 1. Sample Maturity Models of relevance to BIM
All the above ‘maturity models’ are relevant to the construction industry (there are many others as well) but only two so far have claimed the ability to measure BIM-specific maturity: NBIMS’ I-CMM and Indiana University’s BIM Proficiency Matrix [8]. Since Indiana University’s effort is fairly new and is not yet well documented, I will only review the I-CMM tool below:
A quick focus on the NBIMS maturity effort
Let’s start with the definition: the U.S. National Building Information Model Standard™ (NBIMS) establishes “standard definitions for building information exchanges to support critical business contexts using standard semantics and ontologies...[to be]..implemented in software". NBIM Standard Version 1 – Part 1 proposes a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for “users to evaluate their business practices along a continuum or spectrum of desired technical level functionality... [and to measure] the degree to which a building information model implements a mature BIM Standard”[9].
There are two versions of NBIMS’ CMM. The first is a static table identifying 11 Areas of Interest (AOI) measured against 10 Levels of increasing maturity (Fig. 1). The second is the Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM), a multi-tab Microsoft Excel® workbook based on the static table and employing a point score against each AOI.
Fig.1. NBIMS CMM Chart (NBIMS-US v3 Section 5.2 PDF 1.3MB - link updated Oct 15, 2017)
NBIMS’ I-CMM is based on the concept of Minimum BIM; that is, a project needs to achieve a minimum total score of maturity for it to be considered ‘true BIM’. When it was first released, the NBIM Standard, version 1 stated that “one should obtain a minimum score of 20 [points -weighted average] in order to consider true BIM maturity”. It however stressed that the minimum score is not fixed but is “dependent on the date the [the I-CMM tool] is used”. The minimum score can thus change yearly or “as the rhetorical bar is raised and owners demand more from the models being delivered” [10]. In fact, in the newer version of the Excel tool (v1.9), the Minimum BIM score has since been changed to 30 and lately to 40 points
Limitations within the NBIMS I-CMM tool
NBIMS’ maturity model and tool are still in their early days of developmentand may yet change significantly. However, both the model and tool have significant limitations which I will briefly discuss below [11]:
The I-CMM tool has been designed to be used as an “internal tool...[to]...determine the level of maturity of an individual BIM project as measured against a set of weighted criteria agreed to be desirable in a Building Information Model”[12][13]. I-CMM focuses primarily on measuring BIM information management and “should not be used as a benchmark for any other metrics” [14] including those related to architectural, engineering, construction and management. Also, I-CMM is not intended to be used as a “tool to compare BIMs or BIM implementations” [15].
In addition to the above structural limitations, the I-CMM’s scoring system can theoretically generate different results (certificates) for the same BIM project if the tool is employed by different users or at different times. This is highlighted in how NBIMS ‘allows’ those who use the tool to modify AOI weighting according to their specific requirements (see page 79 of NBIMS v1, part 1). This variability in AOI’s weightings coupled with a ‘date-sensitive’ Minimum BIM score limit the tool’s reliability as well as its usability as an industry-wide, market-independent measurement tool.
The need for a comprehensive tool
If one spends enough time and energy to analyse the many strength and shortfalls of available maturity models, s/he soon realizes what is missing: a specialized BIM Capability and Maturity tool that can be used internally by organisation and externally by independent assessors, can measure all key metrics related to BIM, has a consistent scoring system and is equally applicable across markets, disciplines and organisational sizes.
Of course, it is not realistic to expect organizations to independently develop their own measurement tools and impose them on all others. It is also impractical to ask industry players to rely on tools developed by other industries and are unsuitable for measuring BIM. Finally, it is not useful to adopt existing tools that – although developed for BIM but - can neither measure all BIM indicators nor are consistent in their measurement.
So what is the solution to all this? Can a maturity model and a measurement tool be developed to detect ‘BIM wash’, measure ‘BIMness’ and allow trustworthy certification of organizations which invest, develop and maintain their BIM competency?
...
[1] The term ‘model’ in this post denotes ‘knowledge models’ not ‘object-based models’ as typically associated with BIM.
[2] BIM Competencies are the generic abilities that teams and organizations need to acquire as they adopt and improve upon their BIM technologies, processes and policies. These competencies include technical (e.g. exchanging model data) and non-technical abilities (e.g. virtual team management) but all are important to move from Pre-BIM to IPD through a systematic and measurable approach. BIM Competencies are grouped in sets which are employed to establish either Capability or Maturity benchmarks. I’ll discuss BIM Competencies in a future post.
[3] Vaidyanathan, K., & Howell, G. (2007). Construction Supply Chain Maturity Model - Conceptual Framework, International Group For Lean Construction (IGLC-15). Michigan, USA.
[4] Arif, M., Egbu, C., Alom, O., & Khalfan, M. M. A. (2009). Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1), 92-108.
[5] Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, W. C. (2002). Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model. ASCE, Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 150-155.
[6] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.
[7] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.
[8] Indiana University BIM Proficiency Matrix includes 8 categories measured against 4 maturity/proficiency levels. The matrix appears to focus on the accuracy and richness of the digital model (as an end-product) and has little focus on the process of creating that model. More information is available here (PDF). Thank you to Dr. Umit Isikdag (University of Salford - UK) for bringing this effort to my attention.
[9] NIST. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard - Version 1.0 - Part 1: Overview, principles and Methodologies: National Institute of Building Sciences (Page 75).
[11] I will be reviewing the NBIMS CMM and I-CMM in more detail as part of my upcoming chapter ‘BIM Maturity Matrix’ in the Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (http://bit.ly/BIMhandbook).
[13] Suermann, P. C., Issa, R. R. A., & McCuen, T. L. (2008). Validation of the U.S. National Building Information Modeling Standard Interactive Capability Maturity Model 12th International Conference on Computing In Civil and Building Engineering, October 16-18. Beijing, China.
[14] NIST. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard - Version 1.0 - Part 1: Overview, principles and Methodologies: National Institute of Building Sciences (Page 80).
Let’s start with a short story about two AEC organisations that – once upon a time – decided to adopt Building Information Modelling. Both organisations were mid-sized firms, operated within the same market and had the same mix of disciplines. Both were able to undertake large Design and Construct (Design and Build) projects of value exceeding $200m within the Health Sector. But this is where the similarities ended:
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The Yellow Organisation decided to invest substantial energy and money to acquire object-based software (say Revit®, Tekla® or Vico®). This decision came after a group of enthusiastic and technology-savvy staff succeeded in convincing management to trial BIM. These ‘champions’ then organised and undertook the necessary training as recommended by their BIM software retailer and supplemented their learning by sieving through countless online forums. After a handful of months, a few setbacks and a couple of successful pilot projects, this group of individuals – now considered superheroes by some of their peers and computer-hugging fools by others – stood ready to implement what they’ve learned across the organisation. New BIM components where generated on-the-job and novel standards/processes started to slowly push out existing CAD practices. The management, now excited about the commercial possibilities of the new deliverables, instructed its marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Yellow’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.
The Blue Organisation invested substantial time and energy in investigating, developing and then gradually implementing an overall BIM strategy, tailored training plans, modelling standards and workflow protocols. Internal and external help were sought to communicate, train as well as educate staff [1] about BIM technologies and processes. The management team, after leading this implementation effort from day zero, succeeded in getting all staff enthusiastic and engaged in developing BIM products and processes. They continuously conducted internal assessments to ensure that their BIM productivity is sufficiently stable and that they can predictably and uniformly deliver high-quality models and drawings. Convinced that BIM is the only efficient way to deliver services, they allowed their marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Blue’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.
End of short story...
Now, from an onlooker’s point of view (a client for example) both organisations appear equally qualified, just as able to deliver the promise of BIM....But they’re not equally qualified – far from it. These two organisations demonstrate a significant problem in identifying the difference between BIM Capability - the ability to generate BIM deliverables and services, from BIM Maturity - the extent, depth, quality, predictability and repeatability of these BIM deliverables and services.
Let’s have another look at the above organisations using two different lenses:
#
Yellow Organisation
Blue Organisation
1
Uses Object-based software tools
Also uses Object-based software tools
2
Can collaborate internally using multi-disciplinary object-based models
Same as left...
3
Can deliver at least one large BIM project of construction value exceeding $200m
Same as left...
4
Has experience in the Health Sector
Same as left...
5
...
...
Quick Conclusion: the Yellow and Blue organisation have very similar BIM Capability
Table 1. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Capability lens
#
Yellow Organisation
Blue Organisation
1
Bottom-Up initial BIM approach
Top-Down initial BIM approach
2
Champion-lead implementation
Management-lead implementation
3
No evidence of overall BIM strategy
Overall Strategy preceded implementation
4
No evidence of internal communication about BIM implementation efforts
There is evidence of internal communication as part of the BIM implementation effort
5
Standards were learned, developed and extended on the go
Standards and workflows where readied prior to wide implementation
6
Evidence of change-resistance (cynicism)
Evidence of wide-spread enthusiasm
7
No evidence of skill/knowledge assessment
Evidence of skill/knowledge assessment
8
....
....
Quick Conclusion: the Blue organisation has higher BIM Maturity than the Yellow one (this conclusion will be explained in more detail in the next one or two blog posts)
Table 2. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Maturity lens
Capability is thus a notion quite different to Maturity...I'll quickly expand on this a bit more by re-discussing BIM Capability before directly jumping into the more intricate topic of BIM Maturity:
BIM Capability, a reminder
As explored in Episode 8, three ‘capability’ Stages are needed to pass from pre-BIM status to IPD. These Stages represent revolutionary changes (as opposed to evolutionary mutations) and are characterised by reaching a milestone or achieving minimum proficiency. For example, an organisation is considered to have reached BIM Capability Stage 1 by the relative easiness of deploying an object-based software. BIM Capability Stage 2 is reached when an organisation undertakes model-based multi-disciplinary collaboration. Finally, BIM Capability Stage 3 is reached when an organisation undertakes network-based, interdisciplinary model integration. In essence, the three BIM Stages are useful in identifying the minimum abilities of organisations and project teams but are not that useful in analysing or comparing how well they model, collaborate or integrate their deliverables.
Organisation which are not aware of the above capability progression usually refer to themselves as generically ‘BIM able’ as soon as they deploy a few copies of ArchiCAD, Tekla or Bentley Architecture. So how can individuals, organisational teams, organisations and project teams rate their own performance or that of their potential partners or competitors? How can clients filter out BIM wash from BIM reality? They need – we all need – some kind of ‘tool’ that can be applied to define, measure and hopefully improve these BIM abilities [2].
BIM Maturity
The concept of Maturity is not new and have existed for some time in many other industries but the most potent representation of this concept came from the software industry’s Capability Maturity Model. CMM is actually a ‘process improvement framework’ originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a software project. It was developed in the late 80s for the benefit of the US Department of Defence [3]. It’s successor, the more comprehensive Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), continues to be developed and extended by the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Capability Maturity Models identify a set of standardised process improvement levels (or maturity levels) which allow implementers to achieve significant business benefits. Research into CMM has already identified the correlation between process maturity and business performance [4]. The use of maturity models is thought to lead to increased productivity and Return On Investment (ROI) as well as reduced costs and post-delivery defects [5]&[6].
The ‘original’ CMM is specific to the software industry and is not applicable to construction as it does not address supply chain issues and its maturity levels do not account for the different phases of a project lifecycle [7]. Although there are a few – some are extensive efforts - which focus on the construction industry, there is no comprehensive model that can be applied to BIM, its implementation stages, players, deliverables or its effect on project lifecycle phases.
I’ll leave it here now....In the next couple of Episodes, I’ll discuss currently available and applicable Maturity Models (including the one by NBIMS) followed by a new BIM Maturity Index which I think you’ll find interesting...
[1] “Education is about learning for oneself, and training is about learning for the sake of someone else” as beautifully summarised by Dr. Megan Squire after analysing this Monthly Review article.
[2] The full quality axiom dictates that "what cannot be defined, cannot be measured; what cannot be measured cannot be improved, and what cannot be improved will eventually deteriorate” (Dr. Daniel Meade, bettermanagement.com)
[3] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.
[4] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.
[5] Jaco, R. (2004). Developing an IS/ICT management capability maturity framework, Proceedings of the 2004 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries. Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.
[6] Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., & Bush, M. (1993). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model - Version 1.1 (Technical Report): Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
[7] Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D., et al. (2000). SPICE: a business process diagnostics tool for construction projects. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 7(3), 241-250.
A construction project passes through multiple phases from inception to demolition. These phases are typically referred to as Project Lifecycle Phases (PLPs) and include pre-construction activities like programming, cost planning as well as post-construction activities like occupancy and facility maintenance. Lifecycle phases can be delineated in a few ways but I have personally adopted a simplified subdivision as follows:
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
Construction projects pass through three major lifecycle phases: Design [D], Construction [C] and Operations [O]. These phases are also subdivided into sub-phases (Table 1) which are in turn further subdivided into activities, sub-activities and tasks.
Design Phase
Construction Phase
Operations Phase
D1: conceptualisation, programming and cost planning
C1: construction planning and construction detailing
O1: occupancy and operations
D2: architectural, structural and systems design
C2: construction, manufacturing and procurement
O2: asset management and facility maintenance
D3: analysis, detailing, coordination and specification
C3: commissioning, as-built and handover
O3: decommissioning and major re-programming
Table 1: Project Lifecycle Phases and sub-Phases
As an example of further subdivision, the Design phase [D] includes Architectural, Structural and Systems Design sub-phase [D1], which includes an Architectural Design activity [D1.1], which includes the Conceptualisation sub-activity [D1.1a] which lastly includes a 3D Modelling task [D1.1a.01]. The usefulness of these subdivisions will not be too evident in this blog post but just remember that BIM implementations can and will affect construction projects at Phase, Task and everything in between. For now we’ll just focus on the effects of BIM on Phases and I’ll discuss the effects of BIM on smaller lifecycle subdivisions in later posts.
BIM Stage 1: Object-Based Modelling
As a reminder, BIM implementation is initiated through the deployment of an ‘object-based 3D parametric software tool’ similar to ArchiCAD®, Revit®, Digital Project® and Tekla®. At Stage 1, users generate single-disciplinary models within either design [D], construction [C] or operation [O] – the three Project Lifecycle Phases. These models - like architectural design models [D] and duct fabrication models [C] - are primarily used to automate the generation and coordination of 2D documentation and 3D visualisations. Other deliverables of Stage 1 models include basic data exports (ex: door schedules, concrete quantities, FFE costs,...) and light-weight 3D models (ex: 3D DWF, 3D PDF, NWD, etc...) which have no modifiable parametric attributes. However, the ‘semantic’ nature of object-based models and their ‘hunger’ for early and detailed resolution of design and construction matters encourage ‘fast-tracking’ of Project Lifecycle Phases (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 1 – linear model
Figure 1 above depicts how object-based modelling encourages fast-tracking: when a project is still executed in a phased manner yet design and construction activities are overlapped to save time [2]. That is, after achieving maturity within Stage 1 implementations, BIM players will acknowledge the benefits of engaging other design and construction players with similar modelling capabilities. Such acknowledgement and subsequent action will lead them to BIM Stage 2, model-based collaboration.
BIM Stage 2: Model-Based Collaboration
Having developed single-disciplinary modelling expertise through Stage 1 implementations, Stage 2 players actively collaborate with other disciplinary players. This may occur in many technological ways according to each player’s selection of BIM software tools.
Model-based collaboration can occur within one or between two Project Lifecycle Phases. Examples of this include the Design-Design interchange of architectural and structural models [DD], the Design-Construction interchange of structural and steel models [DC] and the Design-Operations interchange of architectural and facility maintenance models [DO]. Stage 2 maturity also alters the granularity of modelling performed at each lifecycle phase as higher-detail construction models move forward and replace (partially or fully) lower-detail design models (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 2 – linear model
Figure 2 above depicts how model-based collaboration is a factor in instigating fast-tracking and changing relative modelling intensity within each lifecycle phase. The overlap depicted is driven by construction players increasingly providing design-related services as part of their Stage 2 offerings and design players increasingly adding construction and procurement information into their design models. Also, changes in semantic richness across lifecycle phases occur as detailed construction and fabrication models (ex: steel detailing and duct fabrication models) partially replace the more generic upstream structural and mechanical design models.
BIM Stage 3: Network-Based Integration
In this stage semantically-rich integrated models are created, shared and maintained collaboratively across Project Lifecycle Phases. This integration can be achieved through model server technologies (using proprietary, open or non-proprietary formats), single / integrated / distributed / federated databases [1,3] and/or SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions [4]. From a process perspective, synchronous interchange of model and document-based data cause project lifecycle phases to overlap extensively forming a phase-less process (Fig.3).
Fig. 3. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 3 – linear model
Figure 3 above depicts how network-based integration causes ‘concurrent construction’: a term used when “all project activities are integrated and all aspects of design, construction, and operation are concurrently planned to maximize the value of objective functions while optimising constructability, operability and safety” [2].
In summary, object-based modelling will first blur the lines separating different project lifecycle phases. As model-based collaboration takes hold, lifecycle players start moving into each other’s territory. Finally, as network-based integration becomes the norm, design, construction and operations overlap extensively if not totally.
Note on terms used within Figures:
A BIM data exchange is when a BIM player exports or imports data that is neither structured nor computable. A typical example of data exchange is the export of 2D CAD drawings out of 3D object-based models resulting in significant loss of geometric and semantic data.
A BIM data interchange (or interoperable exchange) is when a BIM player exports and imports data that is structured and computable by another application. Interchanges assume ‘adequate interoperability’ between the sender and receiver systems.
This post is about BIM Steps, those micro changes needed to implement Building Information Modelling within an organisation and then - by osmosis - throughout the whole industry. But before we introduce BIM Steps and in response to feedback received, I’ll partially revisit the BIM Stages topic (Episode 8) in an effort to invite more discussion.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
BIM Adoption: Stages and Steps
The adoption of BIM by an organisation will not happen unintentionally and definitely not in a single giant leap. In fact, it will be deployed through intentional decisions passing through major milestones referred to as BIM Stages. These stages – if well defined - are very useful to understand BIM concepts and visions but are - on their own - not usable in implementation. Further subdivisions are needed: smaller incremental changes that each organisation can make to reach each major Stage, mature within it and then attempt to reach another. These ‘feetstones’ or micro objectives are called BIM Steps. The difference between BIM Stages and Steps is that stages are radical or transformational changes while steps are incremental/evolutionary changesormaturity levels.
But why do we need to define stages to start with?
Update August 26, 2015: This post is now available in Italian through the good efforts of Lorenzo Nissim of the Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi). Article in English continues below:
Need for BIM Stages
BIM Stages - as introduced in BIM ThinkSpace Episode 8 - are part of a ‘BIM Framework’ and an underlying ‘BIM Theory’. I will not burden the blog readers with these but I want to highlight that Stage numbers, their definitions and underlying structures are based on ‘something’ more elaborate than a personal experience. The importance of BIM Stages lies in their observed ability to facilitate BIM deployment within organisations and – more generally - allow different industry stakeholders to:
Agree on a common vision (any defined vision can be agreed upon; undefined visions cannot...)
Generate a simplified implementation roadmap for organisations to follow
Simplify BIM terminology around fewer headings
Identify incremental and achievable steps between major stages
Provide benchmarks for business improvement
Allow organisations to assess themselves and others
To generate the above optimistic deliverables, BIM Stages have been structured using five relentless rules – stages must be:
Well defined (non-overlapping): BIM Stages should be unambiguous and non-contradictory. For example, an implementation step cannot exist in two Stages at the same time.
Generically Applicable: BIM Stages should apply equally to all disciplines, across all project lifecycle phases (Design, Construction and Operations) and throughout the industry’s hierarchy. So, whether you’re an owner, architect, engineer, contractor, sub-contractor or facility manager – BIM Stages should apply equally to you. They should also apply equally to teams, organisations and the whole Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry.
Revolutionary (non-evolutionary): BIM Stages are transformational or radical changes NOT incremental changes, usage types or maturity levels.
Linear: BIM Stages are logical progressions and cannot be skipped.
Cumulative: deliverables of one BIM Stage can be carried forward to the next Stage
Three BIM Stages: a reminder
As a reminder (please read Episode 8 before continuing), BIM implementation or BIM maturity levels can be subdivided into three consecutive stages:
BIM Stage 1: object-based modelling orMODELLING for short
BIM Stage 2: model-based collaboration or just COLLABORATION
BIM Stage 3: network-based integration or just INTEGRATION
Figure 1: BIM Stages - definitions
Which finally brings us back to BIM Steps, the main topic of this post...
BIM Steps: an introduction
The distance separating each of the above BIM Stages is quite large judging by the amount of changes expected at both organisational and industry levels. However, the passage from Pre-BIM to BIM Stage 1 and through each of the three stages is populated by many smaller steps that can be identified and thus fulfilled by willing organisations. These steps are either pre-empt a stage or are maturity levels within each of the stages.
Different step sets
The collection of steps that each organisation needs to fulfil to reach or mature within a BIM Stage across the continuum from pre-BIM to Integrated Project Delivery is driven by different perquisites for, challenges within and deliverables of each stage. It is therefore important to identify these different step sets:
A steps from pre-BIM Status (fixed starting point) leading to BIM Stage 1
Bsteps from BIM Stage 1 maturing towards BIM Stage 2
Csteps from BIM Stage 2 maturing towards BIM Stage 3
Dsteps are maturity levels within Stage 3 leading to Integrated Project Delivery1 – a continuously evolving target!
Figure 2: BIM Stages – step sets
Different Step types
Although many attributes of BIM innovation appear technological in nature, most changes demanded by its implementation do in fact relate to processes and policies (Episode 7). As an example, before achieving ‘database integration’ - an attribute of BIM Stage 3 - certain standards, procedures and data channels need to be available. Therefore, in order to generate adequate guides to fulfil implementation steps, it is important to differentiate between these challenges as each demands a different approach.
There are three types of steps leading to or transitioning between BIM stages:
Technology Steps
Technology Steps are milestones in software, hardware and networks. For example, the availability of a BIM tool allows the migration from drafting-based to object-based workflow (BIM Stage 1)
Process Steps
Process Steps are Leadership, Infrastructure, Human Resources and Products/Services. For example, collaboration procedures and database-sharing skills are necessary to allow model-based collaboration (BIM Stage 2).
Policy Steps
Policy Steps are contractual, regulatory and preparatory changes. For example, alliance-based and risk-sharing contractual agreements are pre-requisites to achieving integrated practices (BIM Stage 3).
Figure 3: BIM Stages – step sets
Final Note
This staged and stepped approach to BIM implementation will benefit organisations as it allows them to optimise their efforts and prioritise their actions. Each BIM Stage will act as(1) a place to start from, (2) a goal to aspire to or (3) a milestone along the way to Integrated Project Delivery (or whatever the industry considers to be its ultimate BIM-driven goal). The identification of smaller steps between stages will allow organisations to plan their next move, select their own change-pace and thus reach their aspired maturity levels with much less anguish, cost and frustration...
For Feedback, please comment below or click here...Thank you
Updated Aug 26, 2015: A video is now available explaining BIM Steps on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
Updated Dec 1, 2015: please note that the term Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the BIM Stages and BIM Steps models has been replaced with viDCO (virtually integrated Design, Construction and Operation). This is caused by changes in IPD's connotations that now refers to a type of contractual arrangement rather than a long-term vision. Thank you.
Many industry discussions affectionately expand on BIM’s far-reaching deliverables: seamless collaboration, construction sequencing, shareable databases and fully integrated project delivery. While all these possibilities are foreseen today and are becoming more readily accessible as we speak (type), it is important to understand the deployment road ahead. Such an understanding will help us focus on the task at hand, better allocate available resources and prepare for the BIM-flavoured future.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The previous episode has described the 1st dimension of the BIM Framework – ‘horizontal axis’ representing AEC players and their deliverables. It is now time to introduce the 2nd dimension – ‘vertical axis’ of BIM adoption. This episode intends to identify deployment milestones or ‘stages’ that AEC players pass through on their way to fully integrated practices. There are three stages/milestones:
·BIM Stage 1: Object-based modelling
·BIM Stage 2: Model-based collaboration
·BIM Stage 3: Network-based integration
Note that each of these stages is further subdivided into sequential steps. What separates ‘stages’ from ‘steps’ is that BIM Stages are transformational or radical¹ changes while BIM Steps are incremental² ones within them. In this post, we’ll focus our attention on identifying the transformational stages within BIM Nodes. We’ll do that after briefly describing the Pre-BIM status which insistently prevails within the AEC industry.
The Pre-BIM Status:
At the Policy front, the Pre-BIM status is characterised by adversarial relationships as contractual arrangements encourage risk shedding and over-the wall interactions. Moving to the Process front, there are huge dependencies on 2D documentation to describe 3D reality with all the problems this entails. Communication between different Players is less than adequate and project teams dismantle as projects reach a conclusion. Technology investment is low and data exchanges suffer from severe lack of interoperability³ between software applications...this surely cannot continue!
2D to 3D migration....BIM Stage 1:
After being wholly dependent on hand sketches, CAD and 3D visualisations, an increasing number of companies decide to cross the innovation chasm and invest in the object-based BIM applications (Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1: Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore
They quickly start to generate coordinated 2D documents and 3D visualisations from the BIM model but the parameter-rich model itself is not shared with other disciplines. Three-dimensional views and light-weight models (that may include object metadata but not active parameters - DWF, NWD, 3D PDF, KML files and the like) become the new phrases within a rejuvenated communication language. Through their adoption, these companies undergo ‘mild’ process change as they start generating a plethora of 3D views, quantities, specifications, what-if scenarios and other deliverables from the semantically-rich model. Since the BIM model is still single-disciplinary and the deliverables are mostly CAD-like documents, existing contractual relationships and liability issues persist....but not for long!
From modelling to collaboration...BIM Stage 2:
Two disciplines, each ‘owning’ a semantically-rich model, decide to collaborate. They exchange and share models/databases which may not include geometry (think of Gantt charts, assets and environmental databases as examples of shareable databases). The two companies may jointly co-author a single database (example using ‘worksets’ in Autodesk® Revit®), link two different proprietary formats (example linking Digital Project® to a Primavera® database) or exchange non-proprietary files (example IFC, CIS2 or SDNF files). This ‘interopation’ allows them to perform 4D time-studies, interdisciplinary clash detection and generate an impressive array of analysis-driven deliverables. It is here where ‘traditional’ contractual relationships, risk models and ‘tried and tested processes’ start to show signs of significant strain and – with the absence of clear policy guidelines - nascent imaginative solutions.
From collaboration to integration...BIM Stage 3:
This fulfillment of this stage is the compilation of all construction-efficiency dreams and BIM philosophies. At this stage, project lifecycle phases dissolve substantially and players interact in real-time to generate real benefits from increasingly virtual workflows. At this Stage, existing and fast improving technologies play enabling roles and one set of technologies play a pivotal role: the increasingly available Model Server, replication or other model-federating solutions. These specialised network-based technologies store, share and control multidisciplinary input/output from participating stakeholders. It is here where current contractual policies and project processes lose their sync with technological possibilities. Of course and over time, processes evolve and policies get developed to enable the full potential of semantically-rich models and externally references databases...it may be a long road ahead of us.
Figure 8.2: BIM Stages, a condensed view
The interesting thing about all these Stages is that necessary technology infrastructure currently exists or is being developed. Whether we’re discussing software, hardware or networks, all are emerging and maturing quite rapidly. Processes (albeit experimental) are starting to follow as innovative companies increasingly ally together and push the frontier. However, the biggest absentee is still the many Policy players (refer to classification in Episode 7) who are slow to react and generate the necessary guidelines, regulations, liability protection and educational programs necessary for systematic progress.
In summary
While Stage 1 only needs a BIM application and a champion and Stage 2 needs two players and the will to collaborate, Stage 3 needs much more than that. The Integrated Practice will need a systematic understanding followed by systematic consolidation of all relevant Technologies, Processes and Policies...It may be a long deployment road ahead of us but it’s surely a scenic drive!
Next Episode: understanding BIM Lenses
Update (July 20, 2015): A video is now available explaining BIM Stages on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
References:
1.Henderson, R. M. & Clark, K. B. (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9.
2.Taylor, J. & Levitt, R. E. (2005) Inter-organizational Knowledge Flow and Innovation Diffusion in Project-based Industries. 38th International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA.
3.NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The confusion in BIM discussions and implementations can be dramatically reduced by systematically analysing the larger-than-life concept. We’ll do that by subdividing Building Information Modelling into its basic components and then relate them back to each other in a – hopefully – meaningful and useful way.
As discussed in BIM Episode 6, there are three dimensions to every BIM discussion. The first dimension is what I term BIM Nodes – BIM circles if you wish – and it’s responsible for identifying industry’s stakeholders and their deliverables. The other two dimensions, BIM Stages and BIM Lenses, will be discussed in following posts.
So what do these BIM Nodes (Update: now called BIM Fields) represent and why are they needed?
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry includes a great number of ‘industry players’: owners, designers, regulators, builders and product/service providers. These ‘industry players’ in turn generate even a greater number of ‘industry deliverables’: designs, specifications, tools, construction products and specialised services. With careful inspection, all these players and deliverables can be grouped into three identifiable yet overlapping circles (Figure 7.1):
·The BIM Policy circle includes all players responsible for generating standards, guidelines andcontracts. These include AEC regulatory bodies, educational institutions and the like.
·The BIM Process circle includes all players directly responsible for delivering buildings and other construction products:schools, bridges, shopping centres, etc...These include owners, designers, contractors and whoever is involved in a project’s lifecycle.
·The BIM Technology group includes developers of tools necessary for the creation and management of building information models and other design-construction-operation technologies. These include software developers, equipment suppliers and product/service providers active within the AEC industry.
Figure 7.1: the BIM framework includes three interlocking Fields (circles) - Updated May 10, 2016 (Original Version)
Each circle includes a specific set of players who interact with each other and with players within other circles. As an example, Designers interact with Builders to generate Facilities– this is an internal interaction within the Process Node.Also Designers interact with Fire Authorities and other Regulatory Bodies to insure conformity with respective standards and codes – this is an external interaction between Process and Policy Nodes. Both types of interactions take the form of Push-Pull transfers between players (Figure 7.2). We’ll be discussing ‘product and knowledge transfers’ in other posts but for now consider AIs (Architect Instruction) and RFIs (Request For Information) as two examples of this push-pull behaviour.
Figure 7.2: Push-Pull interactions between industry players (External and Internal respectively) - Updated May 10, 2016 (Original Version)
BIM Nodes and sub-nodes not only interact but they also overlap. Overlapping occurs when players or groups work (or need to work) together to form a joint industry body (think of RAIA, IAI and similar organisations) or generate a joint industry deliverable. As an example, Policy and Technology circles overlap when their players work together to generate interoperability standards (IFCs are a striking example). Also, all three nodes overlap (or need to overlap) to generate National or International BIM Guidelines.
So really the importance of BIM Nodes – the first dimension of the BIM framework - lies in identifying interactions and overlaps between industry players. Once identified, it will be much easier to generate better modular manuals and more comprehensive BIM guidelines.
Update (July 20, 2015): A video now available explaining BIM Fields (previously BIM Nodes) on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
Building information Modelling can be a very difficult topic to define. Just try to discuss it with a colleague and - more probably than not - you'll end up discussing endlessly overlapping topics. For example, you start to discuss BIM's effcts on industry and you end up comparing software solutions. Or, the topic starts with how to collaborate around the digital model and the discussion shifts to argueing risk-shedding vs. risk-sharing, insurance coverage and design fees. It doesn’t stop there, if you try to explain to how a small-sized company typically migrates from 2D to 3D or implements a basic BIM tool and the conversation shifts uncontrollably to model-servers and complex integrated practices.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
This ‘confusion’ is not only detected at individual practitioners' level but is omnipresent in industry presentations, guidelines, writings and specialised forums. Just Google the term BIM and read the countless informed and not-so-informed entries about it. To highlight this issue, try reading the below argument which I rephrased from six different highly informed sources:
BIM is a catalyst for change(Bernstein, 2005) poised to reduce industry’s fragmentation(CWIC, 2004), improve its efficiency/effectiveness (Hampson and Brandon, 2004) and lower its high costs of inadequate interoperability(NIST, 2004).BIM is a methodology to manage the essential building design and project data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle (Penttilä, 2006). Building information modelling is a newapproach to describing and displaying the information required for the design, construction and operation of constructed facilities(CRC-CI, 2006)
Just by reading the bolded text of the above few sources (out of hundreds of definitions and assertions out there) and BIM is a sounding more like a super TLA – a belated Three Letter Acronym that defines nothing in particular. One is left wondering if BIM is something you can buy off the shelf? Is it a change process or a construction procedure? Is BIM a GSA requirement, an NBIMS guideline or what exactly? If it is all of the above then isn’t it true that the breadth of a definition is inversely proportional to its usefulness?
Figure 6.1: BIM's recurring themes
Faced with all this ‘BIM chatter’, AEC stakeholders will understandably find it difficult to pinpoint what they actually need to do to reap the promised benefits of BIM. The chatter causes the change process to sound more difficult, extended and complex than it should be...This need not be the case at all.
To clarify the BIM topic, a ‘systematic analysis’ of the BIM domain will need to be performed. This should hopefully yield a clear, methodical and fuller description of what BIM is, is NOT as well as how to implement it in an incremental and sustained fashion. To systematically analyse then understand a loosely-defined concept like BIM, we first need to subdivide it into its components and analyse the relationship between them. The next few BIM episodes will do just that.
Based on my ongoing research (academic and professional), I will attempt to simplify the discussion through ‘decomposing’ the BIM term into three complementary dimensions: BIM Nodes (players and deliverables), BIM Stages (evolutionary steps) and BIM Lenses (multidisciplinary analysis). I will later use these three dimensions to generate some BIM Steps – those elusive incremental steps needed to migrate from a 2D based workflow all the way towards an Integrated Practice.
Figure 6.2: BIM Framework: the three dimensions
To be continued; next Episode will discuss the first dimension - BIM Nodes (update: now called BIM Fields)
July 20, 2015: Video now available explaining the Tri-axial Model on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
CRC-CI (2006) Open Specifications for BIM: Sydney Opera House Case Study. IN Mitchell, J. (Ed.) Delivery and Management of Built Assets. Brisbane, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (click here for PDF)
CWIC (2004) The Building Technology and Construction Industry Technology Roadmap. IN Dawson, A. (Ed.) Melbourne, Collaborative Working In Consortium.
Hampson, K. & Brandon, P. (2004) Construction 2020: A Vision of Australia's Property and Construction Industry. Australia, CRC Construction Innovation.
NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Penttilä, H. (2006) Describing The Changes In Architectural Information Technology To Understand Design Complexity AndFree-Form Architectural Expression. ITcon, 11, 395-408.
BIMe Initiative The BIMe Initiative is not-for-profit effort based on the BIM Excellence approach. The BIMe Initiative aims to improve the performance of individuals, organisations and project teams in the construction industry through (a) developing a modular language for information exchange; (b) Generating reliable industry-wide competency benchmarks; (c) promoting competency-based learning; and (e) developing intuitive tools and templates for all to freely use.
BIM Dictionary The BIM Dictionary, an online resource for all to freely use. The dictionary hosts terms specific to digital transformation in the construction industry. It hosts hundreds of terms with their descriptions, synonyms and abbreviations.
BIM ThinkSpace BIM ThinkSpace is one of the longest running blogs (first post was in Oct 2005) covering Building Information Modelling from an 'informed practitioners' perspective. It posts infrequently yet shares thought-provoking topics and valuable contributions from international guest authors.
BIM Framework A blog for researchers interested in adapting the BIM Framework (Succar, 2009). Each post focuses on one conceptual part and is linked to peer-reviewed papers.
BIM Excellence BIM Excellence (BIMe) is a research-based method to improve the BIM competency of individuals, organizations and project teams. BIMe uses specialised online tools to compare current abilities against project/client requirements and industry benchmarks.
ChangeAgents AEC ChangeAgents AEC is a BIM performance assessment and improvement consultancy operating since 2004 out of Melbourne, Australia.
Translations
Objectif BIM (French) BIM ThinkSpace Episodes are progressively being translated into French through the good efforts of Mr Patrick Riedo of Objectif BIM
BIMetric Lab (Spanish) A number of BIM ThinkSpace episodes are translated into Spanish through the good efforts of Mr Victor Roig of BIMETRIC (Barcelona, Spain)
Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi) BIM ThinkSpace episodes are progressively being translated into Italian through the good efforts of Mr Lorenzo Nissim and Ms Miriam Nissim of the Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi)