BIM ThinkSpace

BIM for Project Managers, a UK perspective

In this guest post, Ralph Montague (Managing Partner of ArcDox, a BIM consultancy practice based in Dublin, Ireland) offers his insights into the changing role of the project manager in the UK following the Government’s BIM requirements and rapidly-changing market landscape. I’m sure you’ll find his insights very useful (editor).

 

Introduction

In 2011, the UK Government implemented an ambitious construction strategy intended to reduce construction cost and waste; improve the quality and performance of buildings; reduce carbon emissions; improve the competitiveness of the UK construction industry in a global market; and drive economic growth in the sector. With a clear vision and Task Group leadership, they set out to implement this strategy from the cabinet office down through all government departments. Part of this strategy was to make Building Information Modelling (BIM), an information production and management process, mandatory on Government’s projects by 2016. To implement this strategy and mandate, the Government supported the development of standards and protocols that would enable BIM processes.

This approach resulted in significant BIM-related discussions and developments. From among all these discussions and chatter, it is important to isolate the BIM issues that are important to project directors, leaders, and managers. It is also important to identify the project manager’s BIM role.

BIM is discussed across numerous documents with lots of terms and acronyms. Many of these can sound overly technical, complicated and overwhelming. This article will hopefully provide project managers with some clarity and identify the documents that facilitate managing BIM projects more effectively. After a brief introduction, the post will provide five basic questions that each project manager will need to ask the project team, and then ensure proper responses are received. At the end of the post, a checklist is provided for project managers to use during project meetings and team workshops.

 

The Problem

To the uninitiated, BIM can seem both complicated and overwhelming. This is typically because we, as an industry, are attempting to do something quite novel; bring together a diverse range of professionals, consultants, contractors and sub-contractors; encourage them to work together in a collaborative and coordinated way; ask them to use new industry standards; and adopt innovative digital workflows. However, although these changes may appear overwhelming, at its essence, it is simply about improving the way we currently work. Even if it takes some initial additional effort to adopt all these changes, there are significant improvements to be gained in design coordination, construction quality, and information accuracy. As demonstrated in the UK government BIM pilot projects (refer to www.bimtaskgroup.org), there are measureable reductions in construction waste as well as time-savings across the construction programme.

Keeping this in mind, when all these changes seem too complicated and overwhelming, try to remember why you want BIM in the first place, or in other words, identify the many benefits of using BIM tools and workflows, which include:

• Better communication and understanding of the project (the 3D virtual building is far easier to understand than 2D documents)
• Better analysis of building structure, energy, cost, and project programme
• Better information flows through digital transfers, reduced duplication of effort, etc.
• Improved design coordination allowing better tenders, and a reduction in construction cost/waste
• Improved building performance leading to reduced operation costs
• Improved cost/time certainty and a reduction of risk
• Effective project delivery
• Better information capture, storage and sharing across project stages, particularly for ‘handover’ from design to construction, and from construction to operation.

 

BUT, a word of caution…

It is important to remember that the benefits of BIM cannot be fully realized without a clearly defined and well managed BIM processes which project participants are required to adhere throughout the project. Without such processes, the use of BIM on a project may cause unnecessary costs and delays. This is where a well-informed project manager, armed with knowledge and experience in industry protocols and standards, will shine! To ensure the implementation of BIM has a positive impact on the project programme, cost and outcomes, a project manager needs to ensure that (a) clearly defined and well managed BIM processes are in place; and (b) check that every project participant will be making the necessary contributions into the project.

As part of its BIM mandate, the UK Government has supported the development of a suite of documents and standards that would support widespread BIM implementation (Figure 1). BS1192, the British Standard for managing the production, distribution and quality of construction information, has been extended to include four additional Publically Available Specifications (PAS). These are PAS1192:2 specifies requirements for achieving building information modelling (BIM) Level 2 during capital delivery phase, PAS1192:3 specifies information management for the operational phase of assets using BIM, PAS1192:4 specifies employers’ information exchange requirements using COBie, and PAS1192:5 specifies security-related matters for BIM and smart asset management. Obviously all these parts are important, but from a project manager’s perspective, PAS1192:2 is the key document.

 

Figure 1. PAS1192- Level 2 BIM Process Protocols and Standards.

To achieve success across BIM projects, project managers need to ask the right questions and ensure key standards are implemented in a timely fashion. While the responsibility for dealing with these questions can be delegated to other parties – e.g. the legal team, commercial contracts team, consultants, contractor, and sub-contractors, it is the project manager’s role to ensure they are properly answered.

 

To assist project managers to fulfil their BIM role, below are five basic questions that they need to consistently ask in every meeting:

Question 1: is all required BIM documentation - as set out in PAS1192:2 – in place?

Question 2: are all participants aware of the BIM-related requirements for producing, managing, and exchanging project information?

Question 3: is all project information being generated, managed, exchanged using the right BIM-suitable formats?

Question 4: is the federated model being used and shared at design coordination and stakeholder meetings?

Question 5: is the information content within models being regularly checked for compliance with employers’ information requirements?

Let's address each of the five basic questions in some detail:

 

Question 1

Is all required BIM documentation - as set out in PAS1192:2 – in place?

The below table clarifies a number of sub-questions and provide reference material to answer each:

	Sub-Question	Reference Material
1.1	Have Pre-qualification Questionnaires (PQQ)s covering BIM capability been included in tender requests for both design and construction services?	Refer to Table 8 in PAS91:2013 (Link)
1.2	Have all appointed designers/contractors agreed and signed the BIM Protocol (as an addendum to their appointment/ contract)?	Refer to CIC BIM Protocol template: (link)
1.3	Is an Employers Information Requirements (EIR) provided as part of tender requirements? Note that the EIR is a document setting out the client’s BIM objectives and deliverables, including a preliminary Model Information Delivery Plan (MIDP).	Refer to Core Content and Guidance from UK BIM Task Group (link)   The NBS also has BIM Toolkit to help prepare the EIR & MIDP https://toolkit.thenbs.com/
1.4	Have all tendering designers/contractors provided a Pre-Contract BIM Execution Plan (BEP) as part of their tender submission, in response to the EIR? Providing a template to guide tenderer’s response is very useful when trying to assess multiple suppliers submissions	Refer to CPIx template Pre-Contract BEP (link) including BIM Capability Assessments for BIM Projects, Staff & IT Resource (link)
1.5	Has the lead designer signed up to the role of Project Information Manager (Design Stage)? Has the main contractor signed up the role of Project Information Manager (Construction Stage)?	Refer to CIC (UK) Outline Scope of Services for Information Management (link)
1.6	Have all parties - involved in design - informed their PI insurance brokers that they are participating in a BIM project?	Refer to guidance from CIC (UK) (link)
1.7	Has the Project Information Manager (for both the design and construction stages) provided a coordinated Post-Contract BIM Execution Plan (BEP), detailing how the team will deliver the Employers Information Requirements (EIR)?	Refer to CPIX template Post-Contract BEP (link)
1.8	Is there a Common Data Environment (CDE) in place for the design and construction stages, in compliance with PAS1192:2, and acting as a central repository for all project information (graphical and non-graphical)?	Requirements need to be specified within the tender documents to outline who will provide the CDE, and what features/functions the CDE needs to include.

Note: BS1192 & PAS1192-2 are currently being considered as a base for ISO 19650, and may well become international best-practice in the future.

 

Question 2

Are all participants aware of the BIM-related requirements for producing, managing, and exchanging project information?

According to UK Level 2 BIM documentation, each discipline need to generate, manage and exchange their project information in a digital format. This requirement must be clearly communicated, highlighted and accounted for in tender prices. Such digitisation is important in order for different work elements to be federated into an overall coordination model for review and eventual handover to the client. Where documentation has not been derived from models, it needs to be clearly highlighted and agreed upon. By requiring every participant to provide their pre-contract BEP and BIM capability assessment, and participate in preparing the post-contract BEP, we can be certain that each member of the project team is aware of their respective role and responsibility.

 

Question 3

Is all project information being generated, managed, exchanged using the right BIM-suitable formats?

The project manager needs to ensure there is no pseudo-BIM being provided or BIM wash being committed. If team members are not generating their information in a BIM-suitable digital format, it is imperative to ask them to justify that and – if no valid reason is given – request they provide it as soon as possible. It may be reasonable that some work elements do not require the use of BIM tools and workflows, and that this may change at later stages of the project. This is perfectly acceptable if this is documented and agreed upon by the project team, and if duplication and additional costs are avoided. This is why the Master Information Delivery Plan (MIDP) is an important document to complete as it details the building elements that need to be modelled, at what stage, by whom, and at what Level of Definition (Level of Model Detail and Level of Model Information). This would provide clarity and transparency and manage team expectations.

 

Question 4

Is the federated model being used and shared at design coordination and stakeholder meetings?

The project team should use federated models through a Model Viewer to facilitate communication and information sharing at every meeting. The use of these federated models allow enhanced visualizations and understanding, and can facilitate better analysis and multiple Model Uses such as Clash Detection; programme analysis and sequencing (4D); cost analysis and quantity take-off (5D); Structural Analysis; Energy Use; Lighting Analysis; Egress and Ingress analysis; Safety Simulation; quality control/snagging; Commissioning; operational cost; Life Cycle Assessment; and multiple uses in FM/operations. That is, if the project team are investing their efforts in creating models and populating them with information, it makes sense to leverage these models to benefit the project and better inform the project team.

 

Question 5

Is the information content within models being regularly checked for compliance with employers’ information requirements?

As a project manager, you need to ensure that a model checking procedure is included in the EIR, and is documented/implemented through the BEP. It is also important that, at key project stages -particularly before handover - all project information is accurate and assessed for:

• Compliance with the COBie standard BS1192:4 by checking data integrity;
• Continuity by detecting the addition/removal of objects and attributes between data drops; and
• Completeness by assessing information against object properties/attributes expected at the completion of each project stage (as detailed in the EIR/MIDP).

 

A Checklist for BIM Project Managers

Based on the above discussions, please find below a quick BIM Level 2 checklist for project managers to be included into project’ meeting agendas. This checklist reflects the five basic questions and ensures related matters are being considered and addressed:

• Identify high-level BIM objectives and benefits for the project;
• Appoint the employer’s representative and technical advisor;
• Agree on BIM standards for project delivery (refer to BS1192, PAS1192, BS8541, Uniclass2015);
• Define the BIM questions to be used in pre-qualifying the supply chain (refer to PAS91 Table 8);
• Define the Employer’s Information Requirements (EIR) (refer to BIM Task Group Guidance & PAS1192-2);
• Assess the BIM Capability of the supply chain (use CPIx templates);
• Pre-appointment the supply chain by asking them to respond to the EIR by completing a Pre-Contract BIM Execution Plan (use CPIx pre-contract BEP Template);
• Ensure the supply chain is informed about Professional Indemnity Insurance implications (refer to CIC Guidance);
• Ensure the BIM Protocol is part of all appointments and contracts (use CIC BIM Protocol)
• Appoint a Project Information Manager for the Design and Construction stages (refer to CIC Scope of Service for Information Management);
• Ask the Project team and the Information Manager – once appointed – to draft the Post-Contract BIM Execution Plan (refer to CPIx  post-contract BEP Template);
• Agree-on and set-up a Common Data Environment (CDE);
• Develop a Digital Plan of Work or MIDP including responsibilities, stages, and levels of definition (consider using the NBS BIM Toolkit);
• Define the Digital BIM Deliverables including file formats, COBie, Uniclass2015 and IFC;
• Establish a training and support programme to address any capability issues;
• Facilitate workshops and induction meetings until information management roles are well established.

 

Conclusion

Project managers play a vital role in a project’s programme and outcomes. With the wide-spread adoption of BIM, digital Information Management has become a key part of that role. That is, project programme and outcomes are now – more than ever – directly impacted by the quality and timeliness of information generated and shared by all project participants. Receiving the correct information, at the right time, and in a usable format is critical for decision makers to keep each project moving in the right direction, and to avoid decision reversals, wasteful delays, and abortive work. While project managers do not generate 3D models themselves, it is important they understand all critical BIM-related technologies, workflows and protocols, so they can adequately manage the BIM process and achieve successful project outcomes. While the use of BIM on projects can yield great benefits to project stakeholders, these won’t be achieved without a clear plan, the right technologies, a committed project team, and – most importantly – a well-informed project manager.

 

Further Reading

• Understanding BIM in a project management environment (link)
• CIOB Project Managers' Guide Updated for BIM Era (link)
• The Design Manager's Handbook (link)

 

Guest Author

Ralph Montague Architect, BArch MRIAI | Managing Partner, ArcDox Ralph Montague is managing partner of ArcDox, a specialist BIM consultancy practice based in Dublin, Ireland. ArcDox (www.arcdox.com) provides professionally-managed advice, production, support, and training services to the construction industry. Ralph is an architect with extensive experience in managing large projects. Since 2009, Ralph played a leading role in the adoption of BIM in Ireland. He is currently the Chairman of the RIAI Practice Committee for BIM, and the Coordinator of the Construction IT Alliance (CITA) BIM Group. Ralph is also a part-time lecturer (BIM and Technology in Construction) in the Project Management programme at Trinity College, Dublin. You can contact Ralph by email: Ralph[at]ArcDox[dot]com

 

 Download Guest Post as a PDF File (835KB)

 

Comprender el maquillaje BIM

El maquillaje BIM ^[1] (BIMwash en inglés) es un término que describe una reivindicación desmesurada – y a veces engañosa – del uso o prestación de productos o servicios BIM. Una organización que lleva a cabo un maquillaje BIM generalmente se dedica a promover sus reivindicaciones de capacidad BIM injustificada a través de su equipo, página web, ofertas y/o material comercial. Como pasó con la etiqueta Verde, el maquillaje BIM está creciendo en el mercado como un valor atribuido a flujos de trabajo y herramientas BIM, y donde los clientes, cada vez más, piden modelos como parte de las propuestas de proyecto.

 

---

The original English version of this article was first published as Episode 16: Understanding BIM Wash (June 6, 2011). Article in Spanish continues below:

---

 

Algunas de las actividades de maquillaje BIM (maquillaje BIM, como término de nuevo cuño) pueden atribuirse a la confusión alrededor del término BIM en sí mismo, no intencionadas e incluso, en cierto grado, inofensivas. Sin embargo, otras actividades son intencionadamente engañosas. Esto es especialmente cierto para los numerosos intentos de venta de servicios BIM que no se han desarrollado todavía, o que no cumplen las expectativas de los clientes.

El maquillaje BIM no sólo es problemático para los clientes que contratan a proveedores de servicios (arquitectos, ingenieros, contratistas,…) falsamente considerados como expertos BIM, sino que también es problemático para los propios proveedores de servicios.

Para acabar de liarlo, los maquilladores BIM pueden causar un gran perjuicio a aquellos que han invertido mucho tiempo, dinero y esfuerzo en el desarrollo de sus capacidades BIM verdaderas y en perfeccionar sus entregables BIM.

Definición de maquillaje BIM

El término maquillaje BIM proviene del Encalado (o lavado de cara), “una pintura o revestimiento blanco, barato, de cal utilizado para dar rápidamente un aspecto limpio y uniforme a una amplia variedad de superficies”. Metafóricamente, encalar significa “disimular o encubrir vicios, crímenes o escándalos o exonerar a través de [...] la presentación sesgada de los datos” (Enciclopedia Británica, 2003) [traducción alternativa Lavar la cara significa “mejorar el aspecto de una cosa mediante arreglos superficiales” (Oxford Dictionaries)].

En esencia, el maquillaje BIM es el intento de esconder imperfecciones (incompetencia BIM) al mismo tiempo que se promueve una visión no ajustada de las capacidades o credenciales BIM de uno mismo. Usando una definición más mesurable, el maquillaje BIM es cuando:

Reivindicaciones BIM ^[2] > Competencia BIM ^[3]

Por tanto, el maquillaje BIM existe cuando las reivindicaciones BIM de un individuo, organización o equipo de proyecto son significativamente más altas que sus Competencias BIM reales para desarrollar aquellas reivindicaciones ^[4]. Esta fórmula significa que para medir con precisión el maquillaje BIM, antes debe comprenderse y medirse la Competencia BIM.

Comprender la competencia BIM

Como término, la Competencia BIM se refiere a un amplio conjunto de entregables BIM y a sus requerimientos respectivos. Ser Competente en BIM es una etiqueta que puede aplicarse a diferentes escalas: a individuos (arquitectos, ingenieros, Project managers, etc.), a organizaciones y a equipos de proyectos:

Un Individuo Competente en BIM es alguien que tiene una habilidad, conocimiento y experiencia en BIM adecuada. Un ingeniero competente en BIM (por ejemplo) no sólo generará un modelo 3D rico en datos usando Revit, DP o Tekla, sino que además lo puede hacer en plazo y de acuerdo con un estándar de entrega alto.

Una Organización Competente en BIM ^[5] es aquella que presta conscientemente (no la que puede prestar ^[6]) un conjunto de productos y servicios BIM de alta calidad. No sólo alberga a los individuos Competentes en BIM necesarios sino que los rodea con los sistemas adecuados, las normas y el debido apoyo.

Un Equipo de proyecto Competente en BIM es un grupo de organizaciones las cuales – además de ser competentes individualmente – han obtenido (fíjense en el uso del tiempo en pasado) la experiencia necesaria para prestar de forma conjunta un conjunto de servicios/productos BIM usando normas comunes, sistemas colaborativos y flujos de trabajo optimizados.

Usando el escalado de organizaciones anterior, vamos a examinar de forma resumida como habitualmente toman cuerpo las Reivindicaciones BIM injustificadas o maquillaje BIM

Maquillaje BIM de individuos

Las reivindicaciones de Competencia BIM injustificadas de los individuos son frecuentes en la fase de contratación. Las personas que buscan empleo en las organizaciones que requieren algún tipo de Competencia BIM - pueden afirmar que tienen excelentes 'habilidades' BIM o experiencia BIM significativa. Estas afirmaciones se encuentran en los currículums presentados, promovidos por las agencias de contratación, o se oyen hasta la saciedad en los confines de las salas de entrevistas. Entonces, tales afirmaciones pueden llegar a ser verdaderas o – en la mayoría de las ocasiones – estar llenas de adornos e inexactitudes. Aquellos líderes de proyectos que reciben finalmente el maquillaje BIM pueden testificar cómo un individuo - después de afirmar durante el proceso de contratación que él / ella domina BIM - resultó ser ineficaz e incluso ralentizó a todo el equipo durante una fase de entrega crítica ^[7]

Maquillaje BIM de la organización

Las organizaciones – y por extensión, Equipos de Proyecto ^[8] pueden reivindicar la Competencia BIM específica con la esperanza de ganar/satisfacer a clientes o asegurar nuevos socios o proyectos. Estas reivindicaciones son frecuentes en el material comercial (páginas web, presentaciones, declaraciones de capacidad, etc.) y dentro de presentaciones de proyectos especialmente donde el término "BIM" ha sido vagamente insertado por un cliente importante en una solicitud de oferta o similar. En innumerables ocasiones, organizaciones que han promovido su “Liderazgo BIM” o “Capacidad BIM” superior han demostrado carecer de las estructuras básicas para entregar un producto ^[9] BIM o prestar un servicio ^[10] de una calidad razonable.

Otros perpetradores de maquillaje BIM

Además de los Proveedores de Servicios ^[11] – los típicos culpables, el maquillaje BIM lo practican ^[12]:

• Desarrolladores de software y sus distribuidores que exageran los beneficios de las herramientas específicas o afirman que sus productos son “una solución integral”
• Clientes/propietarios que piden un producto/servicio BIM que no pueden entender o – si se los entregan – no tienen capacidad interna para usarlo adecuadamente o mantenerlo
• Maquillaje BIM de consultores y asesores que exageran los efectos de sus servicios en el proceso de implementación BIM.

 

Los cuatro niveles del maquillaje BIM

No todo el maquillaje BIM tiene la misma intensidad. Las formas leves de reivindicaciones BIM injustificadas pueden ser inofensivas en cierto grado, mientras que otras pueden ser maliciosas y gravemente perjudiciales. Para ayudar a combatir el maquillaje BIM, es útil identificar sus cuatro niveles diferentes ^[13]:

NIVEL 1: CONFUSIÓN o Maquillaje BIM no intencionado

Esto ocurre cuando no se comprenden los procesos y protocolos BIM o son percibidos como similares a los de CAD. Es cuando los intercambios del modelo básico se confunden con la colaboración basada en el modelo. Es cuando un Modelo Servidor se confunde con un Servidor de Archivos o un Sistema de Gestión de Documentos.

Los que todavía no han comprendido las implicaciones multi-capa de los conceptos BIM inadvertidamente pueden llevar a confusión a sus clientes, a ellos mismos y / o a sus socios del proyecto (ver Figura 1 a continuación):

 

   

Fig. 1. Maquillaje BIM nivel 1, confundir X por Y

 

NIVEL 2: INEXPERIENCIA o Maquillaje BIM de bajo nivel

El maquillaje BIM causado por la falta de experiencia se manifiesta cuando no se reconoce el vínculo entre un entregable BIM y sus requisitos, o cuando sólo se comprenden algunos entregables BIM (la fruta madura) y sus requisitos. Es cuando las prestaciones básicas BIM (como planos coordinados o detección de conflictos basada en modelos) se promueven como innovaciones de vanguardia.

Para los inexpertos, BIM es similar a un iceberg - sólo ven un pequeño número de requisitos/entregables BIM mientras que la mayoría permanecen ocultos debajo de la superficie (ver Fig. 2). Esta falta de experiencia, en manos de un departamento de marketing prematuramente entusiasta, puede generar Maquillaje BIM significativo.

 

Fig. 2. Maquillaje BIM Nivel 2, ver ALGO y olvidar MUCHO

 

NIVEL 3: EXAGERACIÓN o Maquillaje BIM de nivel medio

Es cuando se tienen Competencias BIM reales pero se fomentan mucho más allá de su nivel real de forma intencionada. Es similar a contar una historia real añadiéndole varios efectos especiales de Hollywood (Fig. 3).

Un ejemplo de exageración es cuando un despacho nacional reivindica (a través de su declaración de capacidad de BIM, página web o blog) competencias BIM sustanciosas que sólo se han logrado parcialmente por un equipo local en unos cuantos proyectos.

  

Fig. 3. Maquillaje BIM nivel 3, exagerar las cosas

 

NIVEL 4: ILUSIÓN o Maquillaje BIM grave

Es cuando la historia de la Competencia BIM se eleva a pura ficción. Es similar al argumento de película de Bollywood - todo es canción y baile, colorida y posiblemente divertida - pero la historia real nunca fue, y nunca podrá ser, verdad! Es cuando un proveedor de servicios pre-BIM se presenta como altamente competente BIM, para tener éxito en las ofertas, y garantiza un gran proyecto encargado en BIM ^[14]. Bajo la ilusión del maquillaje BIM, la verdadera capacidad y la incompetencia grave no se distinguen.

Fig. 4. Maquillaje BIM Nivel 4, fomentar lo que no existe

Conclusión

Se espera que el maquillaje BIM – como ya pasó con la etiqueta Verde ^[15] (Greenwash en inglés) – prolifere en el mercado. Es debido fundamentalmente a un aumento explosivo de grandes clientes que solicitan prestaciones basadas en BIM. Al no existir una evaluación / certificación independiente, el maquillaje BIM distorsiona el mercado de la construcción, haciendo que no se pueda distinguir entre los que hacen 'declaraciones de capacidad BIM creativas' y los que tienen la competencia BIM ganada a pulso. Por tanto, el primer paso importante para detectar el maquillaje BIM es comprenderlo. En un futuro episodio BIM, describiré algunos enfoques para combatir y - a la larga - neutralizar el maquillaje BIM.

 

---

[1] Esta entrada de blog es una extensión de la nota maquillaje BIM distribuida durante RTC Australia, 2011. El tema se tratará en dos o tres entradas en función de las respuestas recibidas.

[2] La reivindicación BIM es lo que un individuo, organización o equipo de proyecto opta por identificar públicamente como su grado de competencia BIM.

[3] La Competencia BIM es un término que combina la capacidad y la madurez BIM. La Competencia BIM se puede aplicar a los individuos, las organizaciones y los equipos de proyecto. Esto se explicará más adelante.

[4] Si La reivindicación BIM < Competencia BIM, se pierde una oportunidad de mercado!

[5] Esto también se aplica a las unidades organizativas y grupos - subconjuntos más pequeños dentro de una Organización.

[6] Hay una diferencia importante entre las organizaciones Competentes y Preparadas en BIM. Las organizaciones preparadas en BIM son los que tienen la capacidad de entregar un producto/ servicio BIM de alta calidad, pero aún no han adquirido la experiencia necesaria.

[7] Si bien las reivindicaciones BIM individuales son bastante fáciles de detectar, siempre que el reclutador / entrevistador sea Competente en BIM, todavía es común que las organizaciones no evalúen la Competencia BIM de sus incorporaciones de forma tan rigurosa como deberían.

[8] Ejemplo: dos o más organizaciones que presenten una oferta de proyecto o concurso conjuntamente.

[9] Criterios de muestreo: un modelo basado en objetos bien coordinado, libre de errores de modelado, construible, con información necesaria abundante, modelado con el nivel de detalle adecuado, optimizado en tamaño / rendimiento, basado en una estructura de denominación coherente / estándar, etc.…

[10] Criterios de muestreo: un plan de ejecución BIM bien estructurado, facilitado por funcionarios de alto nivel con conocimientos, muy conscientes de las fortalezas / limitaciones de BIM dentro de las normas aplicables y compromisos contractuales, etc…

[11] Un Proveedor de Servicios AEC hace referencia a aquellos que ofrecen sus servicios de diseño y construcción a clientes: arquitectos, ingenieros, contratistas, Project Managers, etc…

[12] He dejado intencionalmente un grupo internacional que promueve su enfoque BIM de forma activa, como la solución a casi todas las dolencias la industria... ¿Puede identificar ese grupo?

[13] Los niveles de maquillaje BIM se utilizan como una métrica de madurez de la capacidad mientras que los tipos de maquillaje BIM se emplean para describir una mezcla de comportamientos de maquillaje BIM.

[14] Es un caso real.

[15] La etiqueta Verde es una reivindicación injustificada de credenciales medioambientales.

 

---

 

Acknowledgements

The original article in English is authored by Bilal Succar. This Spanish translation is provided by Victor Roig, on behalf of BIMETRIC, a consultancy based in Barcelona, Spain. BIMETRIC assists design and construction companies to achieve operational excellence through BIM and LEAN principles". The editor wishes to thank BIMETRIC for contributing to the spread of BIM knowledge across the Spanish-speaking world.

 

 

El índice de madurez BIM

Después de haber presentado las diferencias básicas entre Capacidad BIM y Madurez BIM en el Episodio 11 y de haber tratado brevemente sobre los muchos y relevantes modelos de madurez en el Episodio 12 (aún no traducido), este post introduce una nueva herramienta especializada para medir el desempeño BIM: el Índice de Madurez BIM (BIMMI).

 

---

The original English version of this article was first published as Episode 13: The BIM Maturity Index (December 18, 2009). Article in Spanish continues below:

---

 

Como recordatorio, la Capacidad BIM es la aptitud básica para realizar una tarea o prestar un servicio / producto BIM. Las etapas de Capacidad BIM (o Etapas BIM) definen los requisitos BIM mínimos – los principales hitos que un equipo o una organización debe alcanzar durante la implementación de las tecnologías y los conceptos BIM (ver figura 1). Es importante contar con un patrón de medida para establecer la capacidad BIM, porque permite una evaluación rápida aunque ajustada de la aptitud de una organización para prestar servicios BIM. Por ejemplo, usando la Capacidad como una métrica, podemos afirmar con seguridad que una organización en la Etapa 3 es capaz de prestar más servicios BIM a un cliente o a un socio de proyecto que una organización en la Etapa 1 o en la 2:

Figura 1. Las Tres Etapas de Capacidad BIM (última versión, 2010) 

Sin embargo, como las Etapas de Capacidad BIM se establecen cuando se cumplen unos requisitos mínimos, no pueden evaluar las capacidades (o la falta de ellas) más allá de estos requisitos mínimos. Por ejemplo, usando la métrica de Capacidad, se considera que dos organizaciones que usan Tekla principalmente para generar detalles de estructura metálica basados en el modelo, están en la Etapa BIM 1. Es una pequeña información útil, porque distingue a estas dos organizaciones de todas aquellas que todavía utilizan CAD, pero nos dice muy poco sobre su rapidez de ejecución, riqueza de datos o calidad de modelado. De hecho, las dos organizaciones pueden tener muchos años de experiencia de diferencia sin que la escala de Capacidad pueda detectarlo. Es por esto que se necesita otra métrica (Madurez) para evaluar e informar de las variaciones significativas en la ejecución de servicios y sus causas subyacentes.

El término ‘Madurez BIM’ se refiere a la calidad, a la “repetibilidad” y a los niveles de excelencia de los servicios BIM. En otras palabras, la Madurez BIM es la aptitud más avanzada para sobresalir en la realización de una tarea o prestación de un servicio / ejecución de un producto BIM. Si no se miden estas cualidades, no hay manera de diferenciar entre las aptitudes ‘reales’ para prestar servicios BIM y los BIM de pandereta más clamorosos.

Para abordar este tema, se desarrolló el Índice de Madurez BIM [1] (BIMMI), investigando y después integrando varios modelos de madurez de distintos sectores industriales [2]. El BIMMI es similar a muchos otros Modelos de Madurez de Capacidad (CMM) analizados en el Episodio 11, pero refleja las características específicas de tecnologías, procesos y políticas BIM.

El BIMMI tiene cinco Niveles de Madurez distintos: (a) Inicial / Ad–hoc, (b) Definido, (c)  Gestionado, (d) Integrado y (e) Optimizado. En general, la progresión desde los niveles más bajos de Madurez BIM a los niveles más altos indica (i) un mejor control a través de minimizar las variaciones entre objetivos y resultados reales, (ii) unas mejores predictibilidad y previsión al reducir la variabilidad de competencia, rendimiento y costes y (iii) mayor eficacia en la consecución de los objetivos definidos y en el establecimiento de unos nuevos más ambiciosos [3 y 4]. La Figura 2 siguiente resume visualmente los cinco Niveles de Madurez o “mesetas evolutivas” [5] seguida de una breve descripción de cada nivel:

Figura 2. Los Cinco Niveles de Madurez (representados en la Etapa BIM 1)

Nivel a de Madurez (Inicial o Ad-hoc): la implementación del BIM se caracteriza por la ausencia de una estrategia global y por una escasez significativa de procesos y políticas definidas. Se han instalado herramientas BIM de una forma no sistemática y sin las investigaciones y preparaciones previas adecuadas. La adopción del BIM se logra parcialmente gracias a los heroicos esfuerzos de campeones individuales – un proceso que adolece del apoyo activo y consciente de los cargos intermedios y directivos. La capacidad de colaboración (si se logra) suele ser incompatible con la de los socios de proyecto, y se da sin, o casi sin, guías de procesos predefinidas, estándares o protocolos de intercambio. No hay una distribución formal de funciones y responsabilidades de las partes interesadas.

Nivel b de Madurez (Definido): la implementación del BIM es impulsada por la visión global de la alta dirección. La mayoría de los procesos y las políticas están bien documentadas, se reconoce las innovaciones del proceso y se identifica las oportunidades de negocio derivadas de BIM, pero aún no se explotan. El heroísmo BIM comienza a perder importancia a medida que aumenta la competencia; la productividad del personal sigue siendo impredecible. Se dispone de directrices básicas BIM, incluyendo manuales de capacitación, guías de flujo de trabajo y las normas de entrega BIM. Los requisitos de formación están bien definidos y, por lo general, se proporcionan sólo cuando es necesario. La colaboración con los socios del proyecto manifiesta signos de mutua confianza / respeto entre los participantes y sigue las guías de procesos predefinidos, normas y protocolos de intercambio. Se distribuye las responsabilidades y se mitiga los riesgos a través de medios contractuales.

Nivel c de Madurez (Gestionado): La visión de la implementación BIM se comunica y es entendida por la mayoría del personal. La estrategia de implementación BIM se combina con planes de acción detallados y sistemas de seguimiento. BIM es reconocido como una serie de cambios en la tecnología, los procesos y las políticas que deben ser gestionados sin obstaculizar la innovación. Se reconoce las oportunidades de negocios que surgen de BIM y se utilizan en las actividades de marketing. Se institucionaliza los roles BIM y los objetivos de desempeño son alcanzados de manera más consistente. Se adopta especificaciones de producto / servicio similares a las Especificaciones de Progresión del Modelo de AIA [6] o a los niveles de información de BIPS [7]. El modelado, la representación 2D, la cuantificación, las especificaciones y las propiedades analíticas de los modelos 3D son gestionadas a través de estándares detallados y de planes de calidad. Las responsabilidades, los riesgos y las recompensas de la colaboración se clarifican en las alianzas temporales de proyecto o en acuerdos a largo plazo.

Nivel d de Madurez (Integrado): la implementación BIM, sus requisitos y la innovación de procesos / productos están integrados en los canales organizativos, estratégicos, de gestión y de comunicación. Las oportunidades de negocios que surgen de BIM son parte de la ventaja competitiva del equipo, organización o equipo de proyecto, y se utilizan para atraer y mantener a los clientes. La selección e instalación de software se basan en objetivos estratégicos, no sólo en necesidades operacionales. A lo largo del proyecto, los entregables del modelo están bien sincronizados y estrechamente integrados en los procesos de la organización. El conocimiento se integra en los sistemas de la organización; el conocimiento almacenado es accesible y fácilmente recuperable [8]. Los roles BIM y los objetivos de competencia están imbuidos en la organización. La productividad es ahora consistente y predecible. Las normas BIM y las referencias de desempeño se incorporan a los sistemas de gestión de calidad y de mejora de rendimiento. La colaboración incluye a los cargos intermedios y se caracteriza por la implicación de los participantes principales en las fases iniciales del ciclo de vida del proyecto.

Nivel e de Madurez (Optimizada): Los participantes en la organización y en el proyecto han interiorizado la visión BIM y la están logrando de forma activa [9]. La estrategia de implementación BIM y sus efectos en los modelos de organización se revisan y realinean con las otras estrategias continuamente. Si se requiere introducir modificaciones en los procesos o en las políticas, dichas modificaciones son implementadas de forma proactiva. Se persigue soluciones innovadoras de productos / procesos y oportunidades de negocio y se plasman de forma inexorable. La selección / uso de herramientas de software se revisa continuamente para mejorar la productividad y alinearse con los objetivos estratégicos. Los entregables del modelado se revisan / optimizan periódicamente  para beneficiarse de nuevas funcionalidades del software y de sus extensiones disponibles. La optimización de los datos integrados, de los procesos y de los canales de comunicación es inexorable. Las responsabilidades, los riesgos y las recompensas de la colaboración son revisadas y  se realinean continuamente. Los modelos contractuales se modifican para alcanzar mejores prácticas y un mayor valor para todas las partes interesadas. Los objetivos de referencia son revisados de forma repetitiva para asegurar la mayor calidad posible en los procesos, productos y servicios.

En un próximo post, aclararé las competencias BIM anteriormente detalladas, medidas con las herramientas de Capacidad y Madurez. Por ahora, les facilitaré una muestra de un informe de Evaluación de Desempeño BIM, generado usando ambas métricas. Tengan en cuenta que la evaluación siguiente (a pesar de que se basa en mi trabajo de consultoría), se ha alterado de forma significativa para evitar la identificación de la organización evaluada. También he eliminado los Logros del Desempeño me he centrado en los Retos del Desempeño (los fracasos beneficiosos) y he añadido notas explicativas (entre corchetes).

Muestra de Evaluación de Desempeño – Resumen ejecutivo

“una vez concluida una evaluación preliminar de [nombre de la organización], el desempeño BIM global de la organización se ha establecido provisionalmente en 1a [Etapa de Capacidad 1, Nivel de madurez a] pendiente de la prestación de [artefactos específicos]...

La [nombre de la organización] ha sido situada en una Etapa de Capacidad 1 […porque] ha utilizado de forma activa [nombre la herramienta de software BIM] para generar [X número de proyectos] durante los últimos [Y meses/años] con un [ratio de uso Z%]… [otras métricas] ninguno de estos proyectos fue colaborativo excepto [nombre de la prueba piloto]…

La [nombre de la organización] ha sido situada en un Nivel de Madurez a en base a [un sistema específico de medición de Madurez]… Los Logros de Desempeño BIM se han detallado en [nombre del documento] mientras que los Retos de Desempeño BIM se han detallado en [nombre del documento]… a continuación se resumen esos Retos de Desempeño [agrupados en los tres tipos principales de Competencias BIM].

Tecnología: “El uso de aplicaciones de software no está controlado ni regulado [se usan herramientas de software diferentes a pesar que generan entregables similares]. El número de licencias de software no está en consonancia con los requisitos del personal. Los modelos 3D se utilizan principalmente como base para generar sólo planos 2D precisos [la riqueza de datos dentro del modelo no se está explotando]. El uso y el almacenamiento de datos no están bien definidos. Las especificaciones del Hardware generalmente son adecuadas pero no son uniformes. Algunos equipos están muy por debajo de las capacidades confirmadas del personal y de los entregables BIM esperados [la sustitución de equipos y las actualizaciones se tratan como aspectos de coste – pospuestos lo máximo posible y comprometidos sólo cuando es inevitable]. En relación a las Redes, las soluciones adoptadas actualmente no están bien integradas en los flujos de trabajo [las personas y equipos usan cualquier herramienta que tengan a mano para comunicar y compartir archivos]. Si bien hay una Intranet con una sección dedicada a BIM, el contenido es principalmente estático y no se adapta bien a la recogida, almacenamiento y uso compartido del conocimiento [muy poco personal tiene derechos administrativos (o motivación) para subir información a la Intranet].

Proceso: Los directivos seniors / gerentes tienen visiones diversas sobre BIM y su aplicación se lleva a cabo sin una estrategia global coherente [como es típico en este nivel de madurez, BIM se trata como una corriente tecnológica, teniendo en cuenta mínimamente sus implicaciones en los procesos y en la política]. La resistencia al cambio es evidente entre el personal [y, posiblemente, muy extendida entre los mandos intermedios]. El entorno de trabajo no se identifica como un factor para aumentar la satisfacción / motivación del personal [considerado como no catalizador de la productividad - pensar en el ruido, el deslumbramiento y la ergonomía]. Si bien se considera que el conocimiento es un activo de la organización, en la mayoría de los casos el personal lo comparte de una manera informal [a través de consejos orales, y de técnicas y lecciones aprendidas].

Las oportunidades de negocio que surgen del BIM no son bien identificadas. Los objetos BIM [componentes, piezas o familias] no están siempre disponibles en cantidad o calidad adecuadas. Los entregables del modelo 3D [como productos BIM] presentan niveles de detalle demasiado altos, demasiado bajos o inconsistentes. En el momento de esta evaluación, parece que se da más importancia a la calidad [visual] de las representaciones 2D que a la precisión del modelo 3D [además, los productos y servicios ofrecidos por la organización representan una parte de las capacidades inherentes a las herramientas de software empleado]. No hay controles [globales] de calidad de modelado o procedimientos de auditoría formales.

Los proyectos BIM se llevan a cabo utilizando prácticas no documentadas y por lo tanto inconsistentes [no hay protocolos de inicio o de cierre de proyecto]. Los niveles de competencia del personal no son monitorizados por la dirección [y por lo tanto les son desconocidos], los roles BIM necesitan aclaración [actualmente son ambiguos] y las estructuras de equipo son anteriores a BIM. La formación del personal no está bien estructurada y los flujos de trabajo son bien comprendidos [en un caso, no se inició al personal en los procesos BIM de forma sistemática; en otro, estaban confundidos sobre los flujos de trabajo y sobre "a quién acudir” en busca de asistencia técnica y de procedimiento].

El rendimiento es impredecible [la dirección no puede predecir la duración de los proyectos BIM ni los costes de mano de obra] y la productividad parece depender todavía de los esfuerzos de los campeones de los equipos. Se ha detectado una mentalidad de ‘atajos’ [evitando o rodeando el sistema]. El rendimiento puede que sea inconsistente ya que ni está monitorizado ni informado de manera sistemática [como es típico en este Nivel de Madurez, la organización tenía islas de productividad BIM concentrada, separadas por mares de inactividad / confusión BIM].

Política: La organización no documenta todavía sus estándares o flujos de trabajo BIM con detalle. No hay controles de calidad institucionalizados para modelos 3D o representaciones 2D. Las políticas de formación no están documentadas [los protocolos de formación actuales están desfasados] y no se facilitan medios auxiliares de formación para el personal [DVD de formación o similares]. Contractualmente, no hay una política de identificación o mitigación de riesgos específicos BIM.

El resumen de la evaluación anterior puede que no proporcione una imagen brillante de una organización que aspira a habilitarse en BIM. Sin embargo, esta lista de retos (mordaz y reveladora como es) ayudará a la dirección de la organización a identificar donde necesita invertir tiempo y energía para mejorar su rendimiento BIM.

En resumen, la comprensión de la Capacidad, de la Madurez y de cómo utilizar los dos indicadores para evaluar las Competencias BIM puede ayudar a los agentes del sector de la construcción a determinar sus niveles globales de Desempeño BIM. Una vez realizadas las evaluaciones de desempeño, las mejoras en el rendimiento aparecerán pronto.

 

---

 

[1] He optado por usar el término Índice de Madurez BIM en lugar de Modelo para evitar confusiones

[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

[5] SEI. (2008). People Capability Maturity Model - Version 2, Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Melon. Retrieved October 11, 2008, 2008, from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm-p/version2/index.html

[6] Consultar 2008 AIA California Council, Model Progression Specifications (http://bit.ly/AIAMPS 70KB PDF document)

[7] Consultar  2008 Danish Government’s BIPS, Digital Construction 3D Working Method http://bit.ly/BIPS3D 2.2MB PDF)

[8] Consultar los 4 niveles de retención de conocimiento en  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] En el episodio 12 [Nota 2] se facilita una definición de Competencias BIM. También pueden usar el buscador del bloc para localizarla.

 

---

 

Acknowledgements

The original article in English is authored by Bilal Succar. This Spanish translation is provided by Victor Roig, on behalf of BIMETRIC, a consultancy based in Barcelona, Spain. BIMETRIC assists design and construction companies to achieve operational excellence through BIM and LEAN principles". The editor wishes to thank BIMETRIC for contributing to the spread of BIM knowledge across the Spanish-speaking world.

 

 

Episode 23: Stakeholders’ Role in Macro BIM Diffusion

It may be a simple task to list the benefits from implementing BIM technologies, processes and policies; however, the combination of activities needed to encourage BIM adoption and facilitate its diffusion is anything but simple. To achieve whole-market benefits attributed to BIM, a comprehensive, structured and coordinated effort by a large number of stakeholders is needed.

This episode expands the discussion started in Episode 20 covering the role policy makers in facilitating BIM adoption. It reflects the research into country scale BIM diffusion currently being undertaken in collaboration with Dr Mohamad Kassem of Teesside University. A new macro adoption model is introduced below identifying all industry stakeholders who share (or are supposed to share) the responsibility of leading, supporting or – at least - participating in macro BIM diffusion.

 

This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:

 

BIM diffusion

BIM diffusion is a term describing the spread and adoption of BIM tools, workflows and protocols within a defined population. This diffusion may occur within an organization (internal or micro diffusion) or across a whole market (macro diffusion). However, BIM diffusion is not a measure of software licenses bought or a reflection of BIM awareness/readiness, but a measure of actual use on live projects after the Point of Adoption (PoA) [1].

Diffusion within a market occurs through commercial (e.g. supply and demand) and social pressures (e.g. contagion and coercion). We typically experience these pressures as top-down, bottom-up, or middle-out [2] dynamics involving different types of industry stakeholder. In some countries, we witness these clearly as a government mandate encouraging, incentivising or even enforcing [3] a structured approach to BIM implementation. In other countries, we observe BIM diffusion spreading organically through the efforts of construction organizations and industry associations.

Irrespective of how diffusion occurs within different markets, and which diffusion approach is faster or better, all stakeholders play an important role (whether explicit or implicit) in the macro diffusion process. By acknowledging industry stakeholders as a network of actors [4], we can incorporate their unique yet complementary abilities into a structured and coordinated BIM diffusion strategy.

Stakeholder as Players

BIM Players is the term used by the BIM Framework [5] to describe all construction industry stakeholders. Each of these players have their own deliverables and requirements yet are all interacting within the BIM domain [6]. A good way to understand players is to organise [7] them (mentally of course) into BIM Fields, Player Groups and Player Types. Starting at the highest conceptual level, BIM Players operate within three overlapping BIM Fields [8]:

1. The Technology Field incorporates all players involved in the development, sale and maintenance of software, hardware, and networking systems. An example of a BIM Technology Player is Trimble or the computer shop down the street;
2. The Process Field incorporates all players involved in the procurement, design, construction, manufacturing, operation, management and maintenance of facilities. An example of a BIM Process Player is AECOM or Jack the plumber; and
3. The Policy Field incorporates all players involved in guiding practitioners, delivering protocols and generating regulatory frameworks to organize stakeholder relationships. An example of a BIM Policy Player is the Federal Government or a PI insurance agent.

Traveling a bit deeper into the three overlapping BIM Fields, the Macro Diffusion Responsibilities model (Fig. 1) identifies 9 unique Player Groups (PG):

Fig. 1 Macro Diffusion Responsibilities model v1.1 (full size, latest version)

 

PG 1. Policy Makers: these are the authorities involved in mandating, regulating or facilitating the adoption of innovative systems/processes across an industry or a whole market (e.g. the BIM Task Group in the UK or BCA in Singapore)

PG 2. Educational Institutions: the universities and other learning institutions which develop and/or deliver educational programs and learning material (e.g. University of Newcastle or Swinburne TAFE)

PG 3. Construction Organizations: the large corporates and SMEs involved in deploying innovative systems/processes for commercial advantage (e.g. Multiplex or a local tiling company)

PG 4. Individual Practitioners: the professionals and tradespeople (including students/trainees) involved in learning or applying innovative systems/processes (e.g. you and me when acting as individuals rather than representing a larger entity)

PG 5. Technology Developers: the software, hardware and network solution providers with offerings targeted at whole industries or specific sectors, disciplines and specialties (e.g. Leica or Acconex)

PG 6.Technology Service Providers: the commercial companies bridging the sales/services’ gap between technology providers and end-users (e.g. A2K or an independent software trainer)

PG 7. Industry Associations: the associations representing the interests of their individual/ organizational members within a specific industry, sector, discipline or speciality (e.g. Australian Institute of Architects or APCC)

PG 8. Communities of Practice: the informal groupings of individual practitioners with a common interest in a specific software, hardware or network solution (e.g. an ArchiCAD user group or SmartGeometry)

PG 9. Technology Advocates: the formal groupings of individuals and organizations focused on the development/promotion of technology-centric standards and policies (e.g. buildingSMART or ACS)

Each of the 9 Player Groups [9] identified in Fig. 1 includes multiple Player Types specific to that PG. For example, PG3 (construction organizations) is composed of various player types including asset owners, architects, engineers and project managers. Also, PG4 (individual practitioners) is composed of professionals, associated professionals and tradespeople. These distinctions between player groups, player types and unique players (i.e. a specific person, group, association, company or university) allow two main types of activities: Macro BIM Diffusion Assessment and Macro BIM Diffusion Planning [10].

Macro BIM Diffusion Assessment

The classification of stakeholders into fields, groups and types, allow policy makers and other researchers [11] to conduct a number of assessments and comparisons of stakeholders’ involvement in BIM diffusion. For example, the Macro Diffusion Responsibilities model (Fig. 1) can be used to:

• Compare the BIM diffusion activities of one player group to other groups within the same market. This allows us to answer questions similar to: “which player group played a more leading BIM diffusion role in ‘Country A’: Education Institutions or Industry Associations?”
• Compare the BIM diffusion activities of two or more player types within the same player group. For example: “how does the role played by asset owners in BIM diffusion differ from the role played by large contractors?”
• Compare the BIM diffusion activities of players of the same player type across different markets. For example: “is the BIM diffusion role played by large contractors in ‘Country A’ similar to the role played by large contractors in ‘Country B’?”
• Isolate BIM players by their group/type and analyse their BIM diffusion activities. For example: “what is the role played by Industry Association X in facilitating BIM diffusion within its membership base?”

Macro BIM Diffusion Planning

Macro BIM diffusion is a whole-market dynamic that requires the coordinated efforts of all stakeholders. To encourage stakeholder participation and minimise duplication of efforts, we can map the 9 player groups’ efforts against the 8 macro diffusion components (Episode 21) using a Diffusion-Role Matrix (Fig. 2):

Fig. 2 Diffusion-Role Matrix (sample country)

This sample Diffusion-Role Matrix clarifies who is doing what (diffusion assessment) or who should be doing what (diffusion planning). This is achieved by listing each macro diffusion component (x-axis) and assigning a predefined role to each player group [12] (y-axis). The 3 Player Roles used here [13] are:

[A] Leading Role played by those responsible for initiating, developing and maintaining a structured diffusion effort (e.g. developing a strategy or generating a data-validation tool);

[B] Supporting Role played by those assisting the Leading Role to communicate and engage with other players, and in delivering diffusion components; and

[C] Participating Role played by early adopters of innovative systems/processes.

These Player Roles are neither exclusive nor permanent. A macro diffusion component (e.g. Regulatory Framework [14]) can be led by more than one player, and the Leading Role may pass from one player to another over time. Also, a Leading Role may be played by any player type. For example, developing an overall BIM Objectives, Strategy and Milestones (another macro diffusion component) may be led by a Policy Maker (e.g. BCA in Singapore) and/or by a Technology Advocate (e.g. buildingSMART in Spain). In essence, the participation and distribution of Player Roles among Player Groups depends on market-specific organizational culture, macro diffusion dynamics (Episode 19), and policy implementation approaches (Episode 20).

In Summary

BIM diffusion across a country is a group sport, with specialised BIM players and common BIM fields. This post introduced a model clarifying how different industry players can be grouped to allow the assessment/planning of structured BIM diffusion. BIM players within and across markets are increasingly interconnected and complement each other. Therefore, without a coordinated effort – whether through a government/EU/UN/IG mandate, major-client requirements or magic-like industry consensus - the BIM diffusion process will suffer from implementation gaps and/or will generate overlapping deliverables. As witnessed in a number of early-adopter countries [15], very similar BIM guides and inconsistent BIM deliverables are generated over and over again. It is therefore important – if we want to achieve macro BIM benefits within a country or across multiple countries - to understand the role different stakeholder groups’ play. We can then build upon this understanding to tailor a structured, coordinated and measurable BIM diffusion effort.

 

---

[1] Refer to Point of Adoption model (Episode 22, Fig.2)

[2] Refer to Macro Diffusion Dynamics model (Episode 19, Fig.1)

[3] Refer to the Policy Actions model (Episode 20, Fig.1)

[4] There are excellent research papers covering this topic including Linderoth (2010) and Travaglini, Radujković, & Mancini (20140 [PDF 161KB]

[5] The BIM Framework is the main deliverable of the author’s ongoing research (2005 – current date). To learn more, please either download my PhD Thesis (2013) or visit the framework’s dedicated blog

[6] The BIM domain is a loose word describing all knowledge and activities pertaining to virtually integrated Design, Construction and Operation (viDCO). You can think of the (BIM) domain as a porous sphere of specialised topics/activities, overlapping with other spheres, and all floating within a huge space of expanding knowledge!

[7] There are near-endless ways to organise stakeholders. One good example is Organizational Hierarchy that classifies industry stakeholders into 12 Organizational Scales

[8] BIM Fields is one of three dimensions of the Tri-Axial Model, summarising the BIM Framework

[9] Pending further research, the 10^th player group at the intersection of the three fields is intentionally excluded from this model

[10] There are additional diffusion assessment/planning models to be published in the future. These include the Diffusion Areas Model mapping BIM Stages against BIM Fields

[11] Researchers are not only those souls found within [the confines of] academia. There are probably more research-minded practitioners (my team!) outside academia than there are inside it. If you are reading this blog and – more tellingly – this blog footnote, you are probably a researcher

[12] This Diffusion-Role Matrix is shown at Granularity Level 1. A more granular matrix can list Player Types or Players on the y-axis, and Macro Diffusion Sub-Components on the x-axis

[13] The Player Roles used in the sample matrix are positive-leaning roles applicable to willing adopters of innovative systems/processes. Neutral and negative-leaning roles are not covered in this post

[14] Refer to Episode 21, Table 3

[15] Refer to “Building Information Modeling: Analyzing noteworthy publications of eight countries using a knowledge content taxonomy” (Kassem, Succar and Dawood, 2015) (To be published around June 2015, abstract available)

 

La diferencia entre Capacidad BIM y Madurez BIM

La historia

Empezaremos contando una breve historia. Había una vez dos organizaciones de arquitectura e ingeniería que decidieron adoptar BIM. Ambas organizaciones eran de tamaño medio, operaban en el mismo mercado y tenían los mismos departamentos. Las dos eran capaces de abordar grandes proyectos de diseño y construcción de presupuesto superior a $200m, en el sector de la Sanidad. Y hasta aquí las similitudes.

---

The original English version of this article was first published as Episode 11: The Difference Between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity (June 3, 2009). Article in Spanish continues below:

---

La organización Amarilladecidió invertir una cantidad sustancial de energía y dinero en adquirir software basado en objetos (como Revit®, Tekla® o Vico®). Esta decisión se tomó después de que un grupo del personal, entusiastas y expertos en tecnologías, convenció a la dirección para realizar una prueba con BIM. Entonces, estos “campeones” organizaron y siguieron los necesarios cursos de formación, tal como les habían recomendado sus suministradores de software BIM, y complementaron su aprendizaje tamizándolo a través de incontables fórums online. Después de unos cuantos meses, de varios contratiempos y de un par de proyectos piloto exitosos, ese grupo de individuos –considerados ahora como unos superhéroes por algunos de sus compañeros y como locos de los ordenadores por otros - estaban dispuestos a implementar en la organización lo que habían aprendido. En los puestos de trabajo se generaron nuevos componentes BIM y nuevas normas / procesos comenzaron a substituir lentamente a las prácticas CAD existentes. La dirección, ahora entusiasmada por las posibilidades comerciales de las nuevas prestaciones, instruyó al equipo de marketing para introducir imágenes y referencias BIM en la web corporativa  de la organización Amarilla y para informar a los clientes potenciales sobre sus nuevas habilidades.

La organización Azul invirtió un tiempo y una energía considerables en la investigación, el desarrollo y, a continuación, en la aplicación gradual de una estrategia general de BIM, planes de formación a medida, estándares de modelado y protocolos de flujo de trabajo. Se buscó ayuda interna y externa para comunicar, formar y educar al equipo [1] sobre tecnologías y procesos BIM. La dirección, liderando este esfuerzo de implementación desde el primer día, consiguió tener a todo el equipo entusiasmado e implicado en el desarrollo de productos y procesos BIM. Se realizaron evaluaciones internas de forma continua para asegurar que su productividad BIM era suficientemente estable y que podían ofrecer modelos y planos de alta calidad de forma predecible y uniforme. Convencidos de que BIM es la única manera de prestar servicios de forma eficiente, autorizaron a su personal de marketing a introducir imágenes y referencias BIM en la web corporativa de la organización Azul y a informar a los clientes potenciales sobre sus nuevas habilidades.

Fin de la historia...

Desde el punto de vista de un espectador (un cliente, por ejemplo) ambas organizaciones parecen igualmente cualificadas, y capaces de asumir compromisos BIM... Pero no lo están – ni mucho menos. Esas dos organizaciones ponen de manifiesto un problema significativo en la diferenciación entre Capacidad BIM – la aptitud para generar prestaciones y servicios BIM – y Madurez BIM - el grado, la profundidad, la calidad, la previsibilidad y la repetición de estas  prestaciones y servicios BIM.

Vamos a echar otro vistazo a las organizaciones anteriores usando dos enfoques diferentes:

#	Organización Amarilla	Organización Azul
1	Usa herramientas informáticas basadas en objetos	También utiliza herramientas informáticas basadas en objetos
2	Pueden colaborar internamente usando modelos multidisciplinares basados en objetos	Lo mismo que la otra...
3	Pueden ejecutar al menos un gran Proyecto BIM de presupuesto de construcción superior a $200m.	Lo mismo que la otra...
4	Tiene experiencia en el sector de la Sanidad	Lo mismo que la otra...
5	...	...
Conclusión rápida: las organizaciones Amarilla y Azul tienen Capacidades BIM muy similares

Tabla 1. Comparación de las dos organizaciones desde el punto de vista  de su Capacidad BIM

 

#	Organización Amarilla	Organización Azul
1	Aproximación BIM inicial de abajo a arriba	Aproximación BIM inicial de arriba a abajo
2	Implementación liderada por un Campeón	Implementación liderada por la Dirección
3	No hay evidencia de una estrategia global BIM	La Estrategia global previa precedió a la implementación
4	No hay evidencia de comunicación interna sobre los resultados de la implementación BIM	Hay evidencia de comunicación interna como parte del resultado de implementación BIM
5	Las normas se aprendieron, desarrollaron y extendieron sobre la marcha	Las normas y flujos de trabajo se prepararon antes de la aplicación global
6	Evidencia de resistencia al cambio (cinismo)	Evidencia de un entusiasmo generalizado
7	No hay evidencia de evaluación de habilidad/conocimiento	Evidencia de evaluación de habilidad/conocimiento
8	....	....
Conclusión rápida: la organización Azul tiene una mayor Madurez BIM que la Amarilla (esta conclusión se explicará con mayor detalle en los próximos blogs)

Tabla 2. Comparación de las dos organizaciones desde el punto de vista de su Madurez BIM

La Capacidad es una noción muy diferente de la Madurez… Voy a extenderme brevemente sobre esto volviendo a hablar de Capacidad BIM, antes de entrar directamente en el tema más complejo de la Madurez BIM

Capacidad BIM, un recordatorio

Como analizamos en el Episodio 8, se necesitan tres etapas de ‘capacidad’ para pasar de la situación pre-BIM a la IPD [2]. Estas etapas representan cambios revolucionarios (en contraposición a las mutaciones evolutivas) y se caracterizan por lograr un hito o por alcanzar una competencia mínima. Por ejemplo, se considera que una organización ha alcanzado la Etapa 1 de Capacidad BIM si utiliza con relativa facilidad un software basado en objetos. Se alcanza la Etapa 2 de Capacidad BIM cuando una organización aborda la colaboración multidisciplinar basada en un modelo. Finalmente, la Etapa 3 de Capacidad BIM se consigue cuando una organización aborda la integración de un modelo interdisciplinar basado en la red. En esencia, las 3 etapas BIM son útiles para identificar las aptitudes mínimas de las organizaciones y equipos de proyecto, pero no son tan útiles para analizar o comparar cuánto mejor modelan, colaboran o integran sus prestaciones.

Las organizaciones que no son conscientes del progreso mencionado de la capacidad, por lo general se refieren a sí mismas genéricamente como 'usuarios BIM' tan pronto disponen de unas cuantas licencias de ArchiCAD, Tekla o BentleyArchitecture. Entonces, los individuos, los equipos de la organización, las organizaciones y los equipos de proyecto, ¿cómo pueden evaluar su nivel de desempeño o el de sus potenciales socios o competidores? ¿Cómo pueden los clientes discernir entre el maquillaje y la realidad BIM? Necesitan - todos necesitamos - una especie de "herramienta" que se pueda aplicar para definir, medir y con suerte mejorar estas aptitudes BIM [3].

Madurez BIM

El concepto de Madurez no es nuevo y existe desde hace tiempo en muchos otros sectores, pero la representación más potente de este concepto llegó del Modelo de Madurez de Capacidad (CMM) del sector del software. CMM es en realidad un ‘marco de mejora de procesos’ inicialmente concebido como herramienta para evaluar la aptitud de los contratistas del gobierno para realizar un proyecto de software. Se desarrolló a finales de los 80 por cuenta del Departamento de Defensa de EEUU [4]. Su sucesor, más completo, el Modelo de Madurez de Capacidad Integrado (CMMI) sigue siendo desarrollado y ampliado por el Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Los CMM identifican una serie de niveles de mejora de proceso estandarizados (o niveles de madurez) que permiten a quienes los implementan lograr beneficios empresariales significativos. La investigación sobre CMM ya ha identificado la correlación entre madurez de proceso y resultados empresariales [5]. El uso de los modelos de madurez se ha concebido para dar lugar a un incremento de productividad y de retorno sobre la inversión (ROI), así como a una reducción de costes y defectos posteriores a la entrega [6]&[7].

El CMM "original" es específico para la industria del software y no es aplicable a la construcción, ya que no se ocupa de cuestiones de la cadena de suministro y sus niveles de madurez no tienen en cuenta las diferentes fases del ciclo de vida de un proyecto [8]. Aunque hay unos pocos modelos – que en algún caso representan amplios esfuerzos - que se centran en el sector de la construcción, no existe un modelo integral que se pueda aplicar a BIM, a sus etapas de implementación, actores, productos finales o a sus efectos en las fases del ciclo de vida del proyecto.

 

Hasta aquí he llegado... En los próximos dos episodios, voy a hablar de Modelos de Madurez actualmente disponibles y aplicables (incluidos el de NBIMS) seguido de un nuevo Índice de Madurez BIM que creo que les parecerá interesante...

 

---

 

Referencias

[1] “Education is about learning for oneself, and training is about learning for the sake of someone else” “Educación es aprender para uno mismo, formación es aprender por el bien de otra persona” como muy bien resumió Dr. Megan Squire después de analizar el artículo de MonthlyReview.

[2] IPD = Integrated Project Delivery, Ejecución integrada de proyectos.

[3] 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” El axioma de la calidad total dicta que "lo que no se puede definir, no se puede medir, lo que no se mide no se puede mejorar, y lo que no se puede mejorar con el tiempo se deteriorará" (Dr. Daniel Meade, bettermanagement.com)

[4] Hutchinson, A., &Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Mejora de procesos estandarizados para las empresas de la construcción. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.

[5] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. El desarrollo de un modelo de madurez de los procesos de gestión de la cadena de suministro utilizando los conceptos de orientación a los procesos de negocio. SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.

[6] Jaco, R. (2004). Developing an IS/ICT management capability maturity framework (El desarrollo de un marco de madurez de la capacidad de gestión de SI/TIC), Actas de la conferencia anual de investigación de 2004 del Instituto Sudafricano de informáticos y tecnólogos de la información sobre la investigación de TI en los países en desarrollo. Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

 

---

 

Acknowledgements

The original article in English is authored by Bilal Succar. This Spanish translation is provided by Victor Roig, on behalf of BIMETRIC, a consultancy based in Barcelona, Spain. BIMETRIC assists design and construction companies to achieve operational excellence through BIM and LEAN principles". The editor wishes to thank BIMETRIC for contributing to the spread of BIM knowledge across the Spanish-speaking world.

 

 

Episodes published in Spanish

I am pleased to announce that a number of BIM ThinkSpace episodes will be published in Spanish. The first to be published is Episode 10: Efecto del BIM en las fases del ciclo de vida de un Proyecto (Effects of BIM on Project Lifecycle Phases, first published Nov 24, 2008). Note: Link updated May 5, 2016

The second is Episode 11: La diferencia entre Capacidad BIM y Madurez BIM (The Difference Between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity, first published June 3, 2009).

The third is Episode 13: El índice de madurez BIM (The BIM Maturity Index, first published December 18, 2009).

I wish to thank Victor Roig and the team at BIMETRC (Barcelona, Spain) for making the episodes available to a wider international audience.

 

---

More episodes in Spanish are scheduled for release in the near future. Translated episodes are referenced within the original posts and are filtered through the 'Spanish' tab/link (top of the page). If you're interested in translating any of the episodes into other languages, please contact the editor.

Episode 22: The Wedge and the S-Curve

The second most frequently asked question I receive when presenting my work is whether the BIM performance models I use contradict with UK’s BIM maturity levels. The short answer is ‘no’, but the longer answer is much more interesting and possibly a bit controversial. This Episode compares the Bew-Richards BIM Maturity Model (UK) with the BIM performance models developed as part of the BIM Framework. The comparison highlights the benefits of separating country-specific strategy models from country-agnostic performance models, and how both are needed in every market.

 

This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:

 

This post will first introduce the maturity/performance models and then compare their main attributes in a simple table followed by a brief summary. To keep this episode as short as possible, I've delayed discussing some parts in detail to future posts (e.g. compliance testing vs performance assessment) and moved much detail down to footnotes.

The Wedge

The UK maturity model - also known as the iBIM model (the name of its highest level) or the BIM Wedge (due to its famous shape) - was developed by Mark Bew and Mervyn Richards in 2008 [1]. There are many versions of the base model with subtle but meaningful differences; the one shown below (Fig.1) [2] appeared in the UK Government Construction Client Group (GCCG) report in 2011:

Fig. 1. The UK BIM Maturity Model (GCCG, 2011) - online version

This now ubiquitous image is a clear embodiment of UK’s BIM strategy and its wide-ranging industry initiatives. In its basic form, the model includes four levels with stable (levels 0 and 1), stabilising (level 2), and yet to stabilise (level 3) definitions [3].

Since it was first developed, the BIM Maturity Model has established itself as a key component of a national (UK) BIM diffusion policy. It is now very difficult to isolate BIM levels from other UK-centric construction industry strategies (e.g. Soft Landings), workflows (e.g. RIBA Plan of Work ), roles (e.g. Information Manager), and protocols (e.g. UK’s version of COBie [4]). Applied more widely without its UK-specific components, the BIM Wedge loses much of its strength yet can still be used in defining long-term objectives of varied stakeholders. It’s an open-ended, optimistic model that – even graphically - invites others to imagine subsequent levels [5], and to add layers of meaning [6] on top of those already defined.

The main shortcoming of the BIM Maturity Model is that it’s not a maturity model in the true sense of the word [7]. A more accurate description of it would be a strategy model, a policy model or an industry roadmap. This is due to the structure and evolving definitions of BIM levels which render them unsuitable for assessing BIM diffusion across markets or BIM performance within organizations:

• The BIM Levels (especially levels 2 and 3) act as containers for multiple guides, standards and other policy components. We can assess against each component within the container (e.g. assess awareness of, or compliance with PAS1192-2:2013 or Soft Landings) but we can’t assess against the container as a whole, especially as existing components are continually updated and new ones are still being added.
• The BIM Levels cannot be used – and probably were never intended – to assess the abilities of individuals, organizations or teams. Although it is referred-to as a ‘maturity index’ in the GCCG report (2011, p.16), the iBIM model does not include the necessary assessment metrics. That is, you cannot use BIM Levels to establish an organization’s ability to collaborate with others, conduct model-based thermal analysis, or deliver high-quality 4D construction sequencing.
• What BIM Levels can do very efficiently is identify policy/learning targets and test compliance [8] against pre-defined standards. That is, each container/level represents a well-defined ‘set of targets’ for stakeholders to learn about and comply with. The more detailed, and more standardised the components and sub-components within these containers, the easier it is to test stakeholders’ awareness of and experience in each and all elements.

So why are these distinctions significant: containers vs levels, strategy model vs maturity model, and performance assessment vs compliance testing? These distinctions wouldn’t be as critical if the BIM Maturity Model was referred to as a ‘UK BIM Roadmap’ or a ‘UK BIM Strategy Model’. However, the unfortunate naming of the Wedge/iBIM figure as a ‘Maturity Index’ has several potential consequences:

• It confuses strategic targets (with set future dates [9]) with compliance milestones (with set standards and protocols) and compiles both under a maturity label;
• It hampers, or at least delays, the development of a separate maturity assessment model; and
• It will necessarily favour ‘evidence-based’ compliance testing [10] over ‘outcome-based’ performance metrics.

These consequences - which we're starting to witness today - are avoidable provided we separate the necessarily rigid strategy targets from the necessarily flexible performance levels. This will hopefully make more sense after reading the next section.

The Framework

The BIM Framework [11] includes a large set of conceptual models which complement each other to explain the BIM landscape and deliver tools for capability assessment, learning and performance improvement. For example, the BIM Capability concept - one of the three main framework dimensions - is used in establishing/assessing BIM performance milestones within organizations and teams (but cannot measure countries). Also, the BIM Maturity concept is used more widely to assess the performance of both organizations (and their sub-units – e.g. departments) and whole markets (and their subdivisions – e.g. countries). The two concepts, their history, and interdependence are clarified below:

Stages and Levels

The ‘BIM Stages’ model was first introduced through BIM ThinkSpace (Episode 8 – Feb 2008) and then published in a high-impact journal [12] as BIM Maturity Stages [13]. The model identified three BIM stages: [1] Object-based Modelling, [2] Model-based Collaboration, and [3] Network-based Integration. These stages are also preceded by a pre-BIM status (a null or zero stage) and a post-BIM future [14]. In 2009, the maturity concept was separated from capability/maturity and introduced as the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI) [15] with five levels of maturity: [a] Ad-hoc or low maturity; [b] Defined or medium-low maturity; [c] Managed or medium maturity; [d] Integrated or medium-high maturity; and [e] Optimised or high maturity.

BIMMI has been covered in two previous BIM ThinkSpace posts: Episode 13 clarified how the five maturity levels (a, b, c, d and e) are used alongside BIM capability stages (1, 2 and 3) to measure organizational abilities; and Episode 21 clarified how the same five levels are used alongside eight macro maturity components to assess and compare market maturity. These different uses highlight two important attributes of BIMMI: (i) it is usable in assessing both organizational and country-wide maturity, and (ii) it cannot be used on its own and must be coupled with another model.

Point of Adoption or S-Curve model

While the macro BIM maturity assessment has been thoroughly covered in the previous episode, it is beneficial to highlight the unique strength of integrating capability stages with maturity levels to assess organizational performance. This is best represented by the Point of Adoption (PoA) model [16] (or S-Curve BIM Model) which is further explained below: 

Fig. 2. The Point of Adoption model v1.0 (Succar, 2014) - (full size, current version)

As illustrated in Fig.2, BIM implementation starts at the Point of Adoption (PoA) when an organization, after a period of planning and preparation (readiness), successfully adopts object-based modelling tools and workflows. The PoA [17] thus marks the initial capability jump from no BIM abilities (pre-BIM status) to minimum BIM capability (Stage 1). As the adopter interacts with other adopters, a second capability jump (Stage 2) marks the organization’s ability to successfully engage in model-based collaboration. Also, as the organisation starts to engage with multiple stakeholders across the supply chain, a third capability jump (Stage 3) is necessary to benefit from integrated, network-based tools, processes and protocols. Each of these capability jumps is preceded with considerable investment in human and physical resources, and each stage signals new organizational abilities and deliverables not available before the jump.

However, the deliverables of different organizations at the same capability stage may vary in quality, repeatability and predictability. This variance in performance excellence occurs as organizations climb their own BIM maturity curve, experience their internal BIM diffusion (adoption within an organization), and gradually improve their performance over time. As shown in Fig. 2, there are multiple maturity S-curves reflecting the mixed nature of BIM adoption, even within the same organization. This is due to the phased nature of BIM with each revolutionary stage requiring its own readiness ramp, capability jump, maturity climb, and point of adoption. This is also due to varied abilities across organizational sub-units and project teams. For example, while the Melbourne branch of Organization A may have excellent model-based collaboration capabilities, the Athens branch may have basic modelling capabilities, and the Hyderabad branch may still be preparing to implement Revit, ArchiCAD or Tekla. This variance in ability makes it necessary to use both capability and maturity measurements to generate a compiled rating for organization A as it simultaneously prepares for BIM, implements BIM, and improves its BIM performance.

The Point of Adoption Model highlights how capability stages and maturity levels are used to assess/facilitate BIM implementation within organization and – in combination with other Framework models - BIM diffusion across markets. However, these performance models are not intended to communicate a national BIM policy. Since they do not identify time-based targets, the varied performance models can be mapped to country-specific objectives, varied industry initiative and any structured timescale.

Comparison Table

Based on the above, Table 1 highlights the main differences and similarities between the UK’s maturity model and the Framework’s performance models:

Main Model/Framework	[1] BIM Maturity Model (UK)	[2] BIM Performance Models
A. Developed by	Mark Bew and Mervyn Richards	Bilal Succar
B. First Published	2008/2010	2008
C. Geographic Application	UK-specific	Applies across countries
D. Main sub-Models (only those related to performance)	No sub-models	BIM Capability Stages; BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI); Individual Competency Index (ICI) [18]
E. Main sub-Components	A large set of well-defined UK-centric requirements and deliverables	Placeholders only for market-centric requirements and deliverables. Can be connected to sub-components of any country
F. Number of Levels/Stages	4 Maturity Levels (additional levels may be added)	5 Capability Stages + 5 Maturity Levels + 5 Competency Levels (no additional stages or levels allowed within each model)
H. Definitions	Fixed for Levels 0 and 1; Level 2 defined in 2015; Level 3 not yet fully defined	Definitions of capability stages and maturity levels fixed since 2010 (competency levels added in 2013 using the same 5-level formula)
I. Authority	Authoritative, adopted as part of a national strategy; increasingly being imitated by other policy makers	Authority by research impact (e.g. citation count) and professional adoption (Modified Jan 18, 2017)
J. Research base	The model is not based on academic research and its conceptual bases are unknown	The framework is based on academic research and its models published in peer-reviewed papers [19]; conceptual bases are exposed to scrutiny
K. Ability to measure	Enables compliance testing of organizations and teams against sub-components (e.g. PAS1192 parts 2-4); cannot measure organizational performance or market maturity; does not allow compiled ratings or continuous measurement	Can be used in measuring organizational performance, team compatibility, market maturity, and individual competency; can test compliance when levels are mapped to sub-components of different countries; enables compiled ratings and continuous measurement [20] at various levels of granularity [21]
L. Ability to communicate	Simple to understand by most stakeholders; can collate a variety of targets and compliance areas within each level	Simple to understand by specialised stakeholders; can collate a variety of performance improvement steps in-between stages
M. Main weakness	The model mixes between strategy targets and performance levels; the model loses its essence outside the UK	The models are not formally endorsed by an authority[22]

 Table 1. Comparison Table

In summary, and based on the above comparisons, the UK BIM Maturity Model and the BIM Framework’s performance models are not contradictory but quite complementary. This is especially true if the iBIM/Wedge figure is understood as a strategic roadmap rather than a maturity index as currently referenced and widely understood.

As illustrated in Episode 20, a truly mature BIM market requires a combination of strategic objectives (Component I) and performance metrics (Component IV). That is, in each market and within each organization, we need both types of models: (1) we need a strategy model to define long-term objectives and a timescale to reach these objectives; and (2) we need a performance model to measure and improve the abilities of stakeholders against these defined objectives.  While a BIM strategy model and a BIM performance model are not contradictory, relying solely on either is as efficient as using a compass to measure the height of a building, or using a ruler to navigate to the North Pole.

One more thing, this episode is intended to clarify concepts and generate discussions around national BIM policies, BIM maturity models and performance improvement. These topics are especially important as new roadmaps [23] and maturity models [24] are starting to make their presence known. I’m therefore keen to share my thoughts with you and read your comments; especially if you wholly disagree with my approach, comparisons or analysis.

And, in case you’re still wondering, the most frequently asked question I receive is: “what software do you use to generate your [add adjective] graphics?” And the short answer is…[25]

 

 

---

[1] I could not find a publically available copy preceding 2010. If one exists, please let me know and I’ll update this post.

[2] Image derived from the GCCG Report (March 2011, p.40) –  PDF 3.1Mb

[3] Refer to BIM Maturity Levels (Designing Buildings Wiki, 2014)  and The 20 Key Terms you need to Know (NBS, 2014)

[4] Yes, discrepancies between US and UK use/abuse of COBie has recently emerged. Trick question: is COBie a ‘standard’, a ‘specification’ or a ‘protocol’? The answer to this will place you in either camp, or somewhere in between

[5] Additional levels beyond Level 3 BIM are imagined/expected by many (e.g. the BIM2050 Report)

[6] There are a number of varieties for each model developed by third parties for their own purposes. For example, please refer to buildingSMART’s technical roadmaps (webpage)

[7] The term maturity within organizational studies typically refers to acquired abilities. That is, an organization or market is said to mature as its performance level builds upon earlier performance levels. A maturity level is not a goal in itself but a “well-defined evolutionary plateau that institutionalizes new capabilities” (SEI, 2008)

[8] Performance is the ability to conduct an activity or to generate a desirable outcome. To measure performance, the question typically used is “do you [or your organization] have the ability to….?”  Compliance is more concerned with testing if an individual/organization is following a set procedure, code or standard (compliance testing don’t measure outcomes). Note that performance assessment includes compliance testing, but not the opposite. Example, to generate great-tasting hospital food (if such a thing exists!), you need to be able to cook tasty food (performance) and comply with dietary requirements and health standards (compliance)

[9] There are set compliance dates attached to BIM Level 2 and BIM Level 3 with some variances in applicability by project type (new vs renovation). Beyond the well-known 2016 mandate for public projects, I couldn’t locate an online resource with consistently updated information. Please point one out to me and I’ll update this note

[10] Stakeholders will be asked to provide evidence that they've complied with PAS1192-X (and similar) rather than demonstrate an ability/excellence in delivering best-in-class products and services

[11] The BIM Framework is the main deliverable of my PhD research at the University of Newcastle (2005-2013). It si continuously evolving and now has its own blog: www.BIMframework.info

[12] The BIM Maturity Stages model appeared in “Succar, B. (2009). Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 357-375”. This journal article was first available online on December 6, 2008  (download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA2)

[13] A hybrid version of the BIM Stages model was published as the ‘Towards Integration’ graphic within the CRC-CI National Guidelines for Digital Modelling (pages 12-13, PDF 2.9Mb). Sub-stages were identified by Mr Andrew Gutteridge (AIA), the Chair of the Integrated Digital Modelling Taskforce partaking in the development of the Guidelines

[14] The last stage is referred to as virtual integrated Design, Construction and Operation (viDCO). According to this model, there are no real stages beyond Stage 3. After that, the BIM term is predicted to diffuse into larger systems, schemata and interconnected data repositories

[15] Refer to “Succar, B. (2010). Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. In J. Underwood & U. Isikdag (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (pp. 65-103): IGI Publishing.” This book chapter was first released in December, 2009 (download paper: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA3)

[16] The Point of Adoption model will be published as part of a peer-reviewed journal article in the near future. The article is co-authored by Dr Mohamad Kassem of Teesside University (UK)

[17] The Point of Adoption (PoA) is not to be confused with the critical mass ‘inflection point’ on the S-curve (E. M. Rogers, 1995) (Everett M Rogers, Medina, Rivera, & Wiley, 2005); or with the ‘tipping pint’, the critical threshold introduced by Gladwell (2001) in his famous The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference

[18] The Individual Competency Index (ICI) is discussed in Episode 17 on BIMThinkSpace.com and Item 15 on BIMFramework.info

[19] The BIM Framework is published across a number of peer-reviewed papers. If interested in assessing the research impact of these papers, please refer to my Google Scholar page

[20] Continuous measurement is different to staged measurement (using stages and levels). Continuous measurement is used for capability/competency profiling and gap analysis. The concepts of staged/continuous measurements are an adaptation of staged/continuous representation within the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1) developed initially by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Melon). Continuous measurement is a principles underlying the BIM Excellence methodology/tool; more about this in a future Episode.

[21] There are four Granularity Levels (GLevels): Discovery, Evaluation, Certification and Auditing – refer to the BIM Maturity Matrix paper

[22] The BIM Performance Metrics were lately acknowledged by a key pan-industry initiative in Australia. Please refer to Section 3.3 of the APCC/ACIF “A Framework for the Adoption of Project Team Integration and Building Information Modelling” – Dec 2014 (PDF 1.6Mb)

[23] Example: A Roadmap to Lifecycle Building Information Modeling in the Canadian AECOO Community (https://www.buildingsmartcanada.ca/roadmap-to-lifecycle-bim/)

[24] Example: the three-levels model, page 13 of “Mission Numérique Bâtiment” a Report for the French ‘Ministère du Logement, de l’Égalité des territoires et de la Ruralité’ – Dec 2, 2014 (PDF-913Kb)

[25] Adobe Illustrator (webpage)…Thank you for reading the footnotes!

 

Episode 21: The Eight Components of Market Maturity

A decade has passed since the first wave of major BIM guides and protocols were published by influential stakeholders in Denmark, Finland, Norway and the United States. The excellent efforts of Senate, Statsbygg, GSA and USCG have surely paved the way for current national strategies, roadmaps and mandates, which in turn will pave the way for future initiatives and BIM diffusion policies. While these initiatives and policies differ in when, how and by whom they were promoted/adopted in each market, they collectively address the same challenges and include a very similar set of policy components.

As a continuation of the discussions started in Episodes 18, 19 and 20, this post introduces the Macro Maturity Components model identifying the necessary ingredients for a national BIM diffusion policy. The model can be used to: (a) assess a country’s current BIM diffusion policy, (b) compare the BIM maturity of different countries, and (c) assist policy makers in developing a comprehensive BIM national initiative or diffusion policy.

 

This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:

 

Please note that, first, the model has already been applied to develop BIM diffusion policies and is continually being refined in collaboration with Dr Mohamad Kassem (Teesside University, UK). Second, the concept of BIM maturity as used in this and previous episodes should not be confused with UK’s BIM maturity levels (Bew and Richards, 2008). The differences and similarities between the two maturity concepts/applications will be discussed in Episode 22.

The Model

The Macro Maturity Components model identifies eight complementary components for establishing and measuring the BIM maturity of countries and other macro organizational scales. The components are: Objectives, stages and milestones; Champions and drivers; Regulatory framework; Noteworthy publications; Learning and education; Measurements and benchmarks; Standardised parts and deliverables; and Technology infrastructure (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1The Macro Maturity Components modelv1.2 [1] (full size, current version)

These components can be measured independently or in comparison to each other using a variety of metrics. For a low-detail or self-administered assessment, the Macro Maturity Model relies on the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI) with its five maturity levels: [a] Ad-hoc or low maturity; [b] Defined or medium-low maturity; [c] Managed or medium maturity; [d] Integrated or medium-high maturity; and [e] Optimised or high maturity.

The eight components are introduced below. To assist readers in conducting a quick assessment of their country’s BIM maturity, five brief maturity descriptions are provided for each component. However, to conduct a more thorough assessment, domain researchers, policy makers and informed practitioner will need to apply additional component-specific metrics; a number of these are also identified.

I: Objectives, stages and milestones

The first component represents the availability of clear BIM-specific policy objectives, intermediate capability stages, and measureable maturity milestones separating current status from a quantifiable future target. BIM policy objectives, stages and milestones may exist separately or within a country’s wider construction strategy:

Table 1. Objectives, stages and milestones (click to enlarge)

II: Champions and drivers

The second component represents the individuals, groups and organizations undertaking the task of demonstrating the efficacy of an innovative system/process to potential adopters. As early adopters themselves, champions can be individuals promoting a new software solution; a community of practice promoting a new process; or an industry association promoting a new standard. While champions are ‘volunteer experimentalists’, drivers are ‘designated executors’ of a top-down strategy (refer to Episode 19) with a mandate to stimulate the adoption of BIM technologies, processes or policies. Drivers may also be individuals, groups, institutions or an authority committed to communicating, encouraging and monitoring the wide-scale adoption of BIM (refer to Episode 20):

 

Table 2. Champions and drivers (click to enlarge)

III: Regulatory framework

The third component describes the contractual environment, intellectual property rights, and professional indemnity insurance underlying collaborative BIM projects. Information-rich, model-based deliverables require more detailed contractual, project and process management protocols than their pre-BIM counterparts. Responsibilities specific to shared models (e.g. elemental authorship and model ownership), collaborative processes (e.g. overlapping project phases and early involvement of subcontractors), and prescriptive protocols (e.g. data exchange structures and information delivery standards) add layers of complexity to team interactions. This complexity and varied risk environment can be mitigated by the availability of a regulatory framework clarifying the rights, responsibilities and liabilities of varied project stakeholders across overlapping – and even concurrent – project lifecycle phases:

Table 3. Regulatory framework (click to enlarge)

IV: Noteworthy publications

The fourth component represents publically-available documents of relevance, developed by influential industry stakeholders, and intended for a market-wide audience. As covered in previously published research (refer back to Episode 18), noteworthy BIM publications (NBP)s represent include three main types of publications (guides, protocols and mandates) representing eighteen subtypes (e.g. report, standard, and case study). The availability and distribution of these types and subtypes are used as low-detail metric to establish market-wide BIM maturity:

Table 4. Noteworthy Publications (click to enlarge)

V: Learning and education

The fifth component represents market-wide educational activities covering BIM concepts, tools and workflows. These educational activities are either delivered through tertiary education, vocational training or professional development; either as competency-based or course-based learning models. It also clarifies whether digital workflows and model-based deliverables are included as learning topics within education/training programs:

Table 5. Learning and education (click to enlarge)

VI: Measurements and benchmarks

The sixth component represents market-wide metrics for benchmarking project outcomes and assessing the capabilities of individuals, organizations and teams. The availability of market-specific – or the formal adoption of international - benchmarks and metrics signals a market’s ability to assess and potentially improve its performance: 

Table 6. Measurements and benchmarks (click to enlarge)

VII: Standardised parts and deliverables

The seventh component represents the standardised, data-rich model parts [2] (e.g. walls, beams, HVAC units, doors and furniture) which populate object-based models. It also represents model uses [3], the standardisable deliverables from generating, collaborating-on and linking object-based models to external databases:  

Table 7. Standardised parts and deliverables (click to enlarge)

VIII: Technology infrastructure

The eighth and final component refers to the availability, accessibility and affordability of hardware, software and network systems. It also refers to the availability, usability, connectivity and openness of information systems hosting data-rich three-dimensional models:

Table 8. Technology infrastructure

Sample comparisons

The macro maturity components can be used to generate a summary of each country’s BIM maturity and compare its maturity with peer markets. The extent and variety of metrics that can be applied to thoroughly assess macro maturity highlight the inaccuracy of generic comparisons between countries (i.e. Country A is more mature than Country B). To exemplify this, the sample chart below (Fig. 2) visually summarises the BIM maturity of nine markets and compares their relative maturity:

 

Fig. 2 Macro Maturity Components Sample Chart (Full size, current version)

In summary, based on leasons learned from past and current policy efforts, this episode introduced a new model composed of eight macro maturity components and five maturity levels. Each component can be evaluated on its own or compared against other components within the same market. Also, market-wide maturity can be assessed and compared to previous assessments, a future target, or other markets. Most importantly, policy makers can use the Macro Maturity Model and other macro adoption models (refer back to Episodes 19 and 20) to structure a BIM diffusion policy that is both comprehensive and easily communicated.

---

 

One more thing, this macro maturity research is being communicated through a variety of channels. In addition to BIM ThinkSpace episodes, peer-reviewed publications, and social media engagements, we’ve started delivering a number of public presentation to explain macro BIM maturity concepts and assist industry stakeholders in their BIM diffusion efforts. As part of these presentations, Dr Kassem will be introducing five macro BIM adoption models at the European BIM Summit in Barcelona on Feb 12; and at the Future BIM Implementation conference in Doha on May 6, 2015. Additional presentations and web events will be announced through our twitter accounts (@KassemmMhm and @bsuccar) as dates are confirmed. To receive an email notification of future events, presentations and posts, please subscribe to the BIM ThinkSpace mailing list by entering your email adress above (top-right)… Thank you.

---

[1] This model was first published as Item 26 on the BIM Framework blog - July 20, 2014

[2] Typically referred to as elements, components, objects or families.

[3] Model uses can be specific to the design phase (e.g. immersive environments), construction phase (e.g. construction logistics and flow), operation phase (e.g. asset tracking), or across all project lifecycle phases (e.g. cost planning and lean modelling).

 

Episode 20: The role policy makers (can) play in BIM adoption

Hardly a week or two passes without hearing about a new national BIM initiative in one country or another. It is very clear that the pace of BIM adoption has significantly accelerated over the past two years and the next major implementation wave appears to be targeting mainland Europe. Sustained efforts can now be detected in Germany, France and Spain as practitioners and industry associations start to sound the same battle cries we heard before in the US, UK, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and most recently Korea and Brazil.

As policy makers race forward to copy other policy makers or to develop their own BIM guides, protocols and mandates, it may be beneficial to share our ongoing bird’s eye research with those interested. Based on ongoing collaboration with Dr Mohamad Kassem (Teesside University, UK) we’ve investigated and are currently developing a set of Macro Adoption Models intended to inform market-scale BIM diffusion strategies. These models reflect our research starting mid-2013 and are designed to assist policy makers to assess international BIM adoption efforts and to develop their own country-specific initiatives.

 

This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:

 

One of the models[i] we are ready to share is the Policy Actions Model (Fig. 1) which identifies three implementation activities (communicate, engage, monitor) mapped against three implementation approaches (passive, active and assertive) to generate nine policy actions:

Fig. 1. Policy Actions model v1.4 (full size, current version)

The three activities are consistently witnessed in markets where there's an intentional top-down push to diffuse BIM tools and workflows. What varies is the intensity these activities are conducted and the mix of player types (e.g. government, industry associations and communities of practice) undertaking the policy development effort[ii]. That is, each of the three activities (communicate, engage and monitor) can be approached at three levels of intensity (passive, active, and assertive) accounting for the differences in cultural attitudes and power dynamics across different markets. Practitioners in one country (e.g. an SE Asian nation) may call upon their government to take an assertive approach, practitioners in another country (e.g. US or Australia) may prefer an active or even a more passive approach.

 

	[1] PASSIVE	[2] ACTIVE	[3] ASSERTIVE
[A] COMMUNICATE	Make aware: the policy player informs stakeholders of the importance, benefits and challenges of a system/process through formal and informal communications	Educate: the policy player generates informative guides to educate stakeholders of the specific deliverables, requirements and workflows of the system/process	Prescribe: the policy player details the exact system/process to be adopted by stakeholders
[B] ENGAGE	Encourage: the policy player conducts workshops and networking events to encourage stakeholders to adopt the system/process	Incentivise: the policy player provides rewards, financial incentives and preferential treatment to stakeholders adopting the system/process	Enforce: the policy player includes (favours) or excludes (penalises) stakeholders based on their respective adoption of the system/process
[C] MONITOR	Observe: the policy player observes as (or if) stakeholders have adopted the system/process	Track: the policy player surveys, tracks and scrutinizes how/if the system/process is adopted by stakeholders	Control: the policy player establishes financial triggers, compliance gates and mandatory standards for the prescribed system/process

 

 Table 1. Policy Actions matrix

As depicted in Table 1, the three policy approaches signify an intensification of policy maker’s involvement in facilitating BIM adoption: from a passive observer to a more assertive controller.

These policy actions are discussed here at low detail. Needless to say, each of the nine actions can be further divided into smaller policy tasks. For example, the incentivise action [B2] can be subdivided into multiple incentivise tasks: e.g. [B2.1] make tax regime favourable for BIM adoption, [B2.2] develop a BIM procurement policy, and [B2.3] introduce a BIM-focused innovation fund.

The Policy Actions Model reflect a variety of actions that policy makers take (or can take) in each market to facilitate BIM adoption. It is important to understand that all approaches are equally valid. However, it is critical for policy makers to select the combination of policy actions which best fulfil the unique requirements of their market (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Policy Action Patterns sample chart v1.1 (full size, current version)

The Policy Action Patterns sample chart (Figure 2) provides a quick comparison of diffusion actions undertaken by policy makers in different markets.Each pattern represents the policy actions taken (or can be taken) by policy players. For example, the top-left pattern represents a wholly passive approach (Make Aware + Encourage + Observe), while the bottom-right pattern represents a mixture of assertive and active approaches (Prescribe + Incentivise + Track).

 

---

Updated Dec 18, 2015: a short video now available explaining the Policy Actions model on the BIM Framework Channel:

 

 

---

 

Please note that the Policy Action Model and other Macro Adoption Models are still being refined. More detailed information will be provided once the research is formally published mid-2015 (estimate). Until then, we’ll be presenting these models and early findings in a number of forums and social media outlets. The first presentation has already been delivered at Geo-BIM 2014 (Nov 20, 2014); the second will be delivered at the European BIM Summit 2015 in Barcelona (Feb 12, 2015). For additional upcoming presentations and web forums, please subscribe to BIMThinkspace.com (top-right) and follow our Twitter accounts (@KassemmMhm or @bsuccar). Thank you.

---

[i] Another model – the Macro Maturity Components Model - has already been used to guide the development of BIM policies in Brazil. Please refer to “Strategy for the diffusion of Building Information Modelling in Brazil, Experiences Exchange in BIM -Building Information Modelling” (Apoio aos Diálogos Setoriais UE-Brasil, Fase II). Download Presentation (2.2Mb)

[ii] This is covered by the Macro Diffusion Responsibilities Model to be published at a later stage.

 

BIM Scope Creep

This viewpoint is by guest author Rexter Retana.

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an essential part of the construction procurement process. However, when BIM deliverables are indiscriminately injected into the scope of services of project players, or across the construction supply chain, a BIM scope creep will occur.

 

What is a BIM scope creep?

The project management discipline recognizes three project ‘boundary elements’ – scope, cost and schedule - acting in tandem with each other (Wagner, 2013). When one boundary element is increased or diminished, the other two elements must also increase/diminish in order to regain project equilibrium (Fig. 1). According to the Project Management Institute (PMI, 2013), ‘scope creep’ is the incremental expansion of the project’s scope – e.g. through additional work requests - without the necessary readjustment of the other two elements:

Fig. 1 Project Boundaries (Retana, 2014)

 

BIM scope creep are two main types - demand-side and supply-side:

A. Demand Side Scope Creep - when clients set ambiguous or unrealistic BIM requirements:

Below is an excerpt from a recent Request for Proposal (RFP) whereby a client injects BIM into a project scope using a single generic clause [1], devoid of justification or detail:

“This project will be undertaken utilizing BIM design processes and tools and is to be at Level 2 standard and in line with BS1192. The Architect will be responsible for this process as lead designer and is expected to undertake the BIM Manager role.”

Such a blanket clause is increasingly common and highlights two main issues:

• Either the client/owner is not sure what BIM deliverables to request, and thus resorts to embedding a generic catch-all phrase into the RFP; or
• The client/owner has low BIM maturity and does not fully recognize the impact BIM requirements place on project cost and schedule.

B. Supply Side Scope Creep - when project players ‘gold plate’ their deliverables:

Gold plating occurs when project participant(s) include processes/deliverables which do not improve the execution of the project, are not requested by the client/owner, and do not necessarily improve the final product (the actual facility). Gold plating has several negative consequences (Project Management Learning, 2014):

• Gold plating increases project cost by consuming additional time and resources;
• It increase project risk especially if additional deliverables are undocumented;
• Raises client expectations for future projects; clients may grow accustomed to additional unnecessary deliverables; and
• Heightens the possibility of client dissatisfaction and may lead to legal disputes.

 

Preventing BIM scope creep

To prevent both demand-side BIM scope creep and supply-side BIM gold plating, project participants – especially the Design Lead and Project BIM Manager - should use their experience and available knowledge to educate clients/owners and clarify BIM project requirements:

a) Educate the client

The Design Lead  (the Architect in traditional contracts) needs to invest time and effort in educating the client/owner of BIM’s deliverables and limitations. Clients should be also encouraged to evaluate their own BIM abilities (Giel and Issa, 2014) and improve their internal BIM capability/maturity (Succar, 2010) so they benefit from BIM deliverables and workflows [2].

b) Clarify BIM requirements

The Design Lead (plus other project participants) should identify the generalities and inaccuracies within the project’s RFP or tender documents. This is preferably done during the feasibility phase or – if difficult – during the pre-tender clarification period. If Design Lead(s) lack the internal experience to do this, there are a number of noteworthy BIM publications which clarify BIM’s benefits/challenges, and the impact of BIM tools and workflows on a project’s Capital Expenditures (CapEx) and Operational Expenditures (OpEx).

One such noteworthy publication is the Uses of BIM framework (CIC, 2013) which identifies 25 BIM Uses across four facility lifecycle phases (plan, design, construct and operate). BIM Uses (or Model Uses[3]) are a clear way to identify, structure and communicate project requirements/objectives and thus reduce the risk of BIM scope creep.

Another approach to improving clarity is the development or adaptation of BIM protocols and standardized workflows. For example, the Project Initiation diagram (Fig. 2) explains the basic steps necessary to initiate a collaborative BIM project.

 

Fig 2. Project Initiation diagram - adopted from Succar et al. (2013 – page 186) – direct link

 

The diagram is intended to clarify the many steps necessary during the early planning phase – including:

• Establish project scope based on the project brief or Employer’s Information Requirement (EIR);
• Identify project’s target model uses (e.g. sustainability analysis, design validation, structural analysis, etc.) as derived from the project brief or EIR;
• Establish modelling standards, elemental Level of Development (LoD) and communication protocols (e.g. file naming conventions, annotation standards, etc.) to be used throughout the project;
• Identify software solutions (e.g. structural analysis software, wind simulation software, lifecycle costing software, etc.), information exchange formats (e.g. IFC4, NWD, RVT, CIS/2, etc.) and network infrastructure solutions (e.g. content management solutions);
• Agree on model review and data verification processes to ensure model quality and compliance with the client/owner’s information requirements; and
• Document all technologies, processes and protocols through a BIM management/execution plan or similar.

 

Gold Plating

To prevent supply-side BIM scope creep, the Project Manager (or project’s BIM manager) should actively combat BIM gold platting as it adds no value to the project (PMI, 2013). In order to inhibit or minimize gold plating, Project Manager(s) need to:

• Educate the project team of the need to strictly adhere to the agreed scope of services; and
• Continuously monitor all BIM deliverables as to meet – neither exceed or fall short of – the client/owner’s requirement.

 

In summary

BIM scope creep and BIM gold platting are two faces of the same coin and – if not addressed - will increase project cost and schedule. Only when limiting BIM deliverables to those of benefit to the project or to the end product can BIM scope creep be minimized.

 

---

About the author

Rexter Retana is a Senior BIM Coordinator and Lead BIM Implementer at RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Pte Ltd (Singapore). Rexter works across both the architectural and structural departments and his responsibilities include: BIM implementation, BIM management, staff training, R&D and the generation of BIM standards and protocols.

Rexter is a Member of the Structural Engineering Institute, an Associate Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of San Carlos (Philippines). Rexter is currently undertaking a Master’s of Science in BIM Management at Middlesex University (UK).

Rexter can be contacted by email: rexterretana(at)gmail(dot)com.

 

---

References:

Computer Integrated Construction, (2013), The Uses of BIM: Classifying and Selecting BIM Uses, Version 9, Pennsylvania State University (link)

Giel, B. and Issa, R. R. A. (2014) 'Framework for Evaluating the BIM Competencies of Building Owners', in Issa, R. and Flood, I., eds., Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014), Florida, US, June 23-25, 2014 ASCE, 552-559 (link)

Project Management Institute, (2013), The Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5^th Edition, PMI (link)

Project Management Learning, (2014), Gold Plating in Project Management (online article)

Succar, B. (2010) 'Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix' in Underwood, J. and Isikdag, U., eds., Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing, pp. 65-103 (link)

Succar, B., Sher, W. and Williams, A. (2013) 'An integrated approach to BIM competency acquisition, assessment and application', Automation in Construction, 35, pp. 174-189 (link)

Wagner, T. (2013), Preventing Scope Creep, [Online] Accessed on July 31, 2014 (www.lynda.com)

 

---

Endnotes:

[1] Editor’s note: the terminology used in this post are mostly based on UK’s evolving standards. Reader’s from Australia, US and other countries need to replace these with their local equivalents.

[2] For an extended discussion of BIM capability/maturity please refer to Episode 11 and Episode 13.

[3] Editor’s note: BIM Uses are referred to as Model Uses within BIM Excellence (BIMe). BIMe currently includes 51 Model Uses distributed across 3 project lifecycle phases (design, construction and operation) and 8 Operations Competency Topics.