Raramente pasa una o dos semanas sin que oigamos hablar de una nueva iniciativa BIM en un país u otro. Está claro que el ritmo de adopción de BIM se ha acelerado considerablemente en los dos últimos años y la nueva oleada de implementación tiene por objetivo la Europa continental. Se detectan continuos esfuerzos en Alemania, Francia y España y entre los profesionales y asociaciones industriales empiezan a sonar los mismos gritos de guerra que oíamos anteriormente en US, UK, Australia, Singapur, Malasia, y más recientemente en Corea y Brasil.
This episode is also available in the following Languages:
Ya que los responsables de formular políticas [i] desean copiar a otros responsables o bien desarrollan sus propias guías BIM, protocolos y mandatos, creemos que puede ser beneficioso compartir la investigación de visión global que estamos llevando a cabo, con todos aquellos que estén interesados. En base a la colaboración vigente con el Dr Mohamad Kassem (Teesside University, UK), hemos investigado y estamos desarrollando una serie de Modelos de Macro Adopción destinados a transmitir información sobre las estrategias de difusión a escala de mercado BIM. Estos modelos reflejan nuestra investigación, iniciada a mediados de 2013, y están diseñados para ayudar a los responsables de formular políticas en la evaluación de los esfuerzos internacionales en la adopción de BIM y en el desarrollo de las iniciativas específicas de su propio país.
Uno de los modelos [i] que ya tenemos a punto para compartir es el Modelo de Acciones de Política (Fig.1). Se basa en una matriz que identifica tres actividades de implementación (comunicar, participar, supervisar) cruzadas con tres enfoques de implementación (pasivo, activo y asertivo) para generar nueve acciones de política:
Las tres actividades se detectan de forma sistemática en mercados donde hay un impulso descendente, con la intención de difundir las herramientas y flujos de trabajo BIM. Lo que varía es la intensidad con la que se llevan a cabo estas actividades y la combinación de tipos de actores interesados (p. e. gobiernos, asociaciones industriales, comunidades de prácticas) que realizan el esfuerzo de desarrollo de la política [ii]. Es decir, cada actividad (comunicar, practicar, supervisar) se puede abordar a tres niveles de intensidad (pasivo, activo o asertivo) que corresponden a las diferencias entre las actitudes culturales y dinámicas de poder de los distintos mercados. Los profesionales en un país (p.e. un país del SE asiático) pueden solicitar a su gobierno que opte por un enfoque asertivo, profesionales en otro país (p.e. US o Australia) pueden preferir un enfoque activo o incluso uno más pasivo.
[1] PASIVO
[2] ACTIVO
[3] ASERTIVO
[A] COMUNICAR
Concienciar: el responsable informa a las partes interesadas sobre la importancia, beneficios y retos del sistema/proceso a través de comunicaciones formales e informales
Educar: el responsable genera guías informativas para educar a las partes interesadas en los entregables específicos, requisitos y flujos de trabajo del sistema/proceso
Prescribir: el responsable detalla el sistema/proceso a adoptar por las partes interesadas
[B] PRACTICAR
Fomentar: el responsable lleva a cabo talleres y eventos de networking para fomentar que las partes interesadas adopten el sistema/proceso
Incentivar: el responsable proporciona recompensas, incentivos financieros y un trato preferencial a las partes interesadas que adoptan el sistema/proceso
Aplicar: el responsable incluye (favorece) o excluye (penaliza) a las partes interesadas en función de la respectiva adopción del sistema / proceso
[C] SUPERVISAR
Observar: el responsable observa cómo (o si) han adoptado el sistema/proceso las partes interesadas
Trazar: el responsable inspecciona, traza y examina cómo/si las partes interesadas adoptan el sistema/proceso
Control: el responsable establece un desencadenante financiero, etapas de cumplimiento y normas obligatorias para el sistema/proceso prescrito
Table 1. Matriz de Acciones de Política
Como se describe en la Tabla 1, los tres enfoques de política significan una intensificación de la implicación de los responsables para facilitar la adopción de BIM: desde un observador pasivo hasta un controlador más asertivo.
Estas acciones de política se presentan con poco detalle. Huelga decir que cada una de las nueve acciones todavía puede dividirse en tareas más pequeñas. Por ejemplo, la acción de incentivar [B2] se puede subdividir en varias tareas de incentivar: p.e., [B2.1] hacer un régimen fiscal favorable para la adopción de BIM, [B2.2] desarrollar una política de compras BIM, y [B2.3] introducir un fondo de innovación centrado en BIM.
El Modelo de Acciones de Política refleja una variedad de acciones que los responsables de formular políticas realizan (o pueden realizar) en cada mercado para facilitar la adopción de BIM. Es importante destacar que todos los enfoques son igualmente válidos. Sin embargo, es muy importante para los responsables seleccionar la combinación de acciones de política que mejor satisfaga las necesidades únicas de su mercado (Fig. 2).
El gráfico-muestra de Patrones de Acción Política (Figura 2) proporciona una comparación rápida de las acciones de difusión llevadas a cabo por responsables en diferentes mercados. Cada patrón representa las acciones de política llevadas (o que se pueden) a cabo por responsables. Por ejemplo, el patrón superior-izquierda representa un enfoque totalmente pasivo (Concienciar + Fomentar + Observar), mientras que el patrón inferior-derecha representa una mezcla de enfoques asertivos y activos (Prescribir + Incentivar + Trazar).
Actualización de 17 Dec 2015: en el Canal de BIM Framework tienen a su disposición un video explicando el Modelo de Acciones de Política:
Tengan en cuenta que el Modelo de Acción de Política y otros modelos de Macro Adopción todavía se están perfeccionando. A mediados de 2015 (estimación) se proporcionará información más detallada, una vez que la investigación se publique formalmente. Hasta entonces, iremos presentando estos modelos y los primeros hallazgos en una serie de foros y medios de comunicación sociales. La primera presentación ya se ha realizado en Geo-BIM 2014 (20 de noviembre de 2014); la segunda será en European BIM Summit 2015 Barcelona (12 de febrero de 2015). Para próximas presentaciones adicionales y foros web, por favor suscríbase a BIMThinkspace.com (arriba-derecha) y sigan nuestras cuentas de Twitter (@KassemmMhm or @bsuccar). Gracias.
[i] Policy’s maker = Responsable de formular la política
[ii] Otro modelo – el Modelo de Componentes de Macro Madurez – ya ha sido utilizado para guiar el desarrollo de las políticas BIM en Brasill. Por favor, consulte “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). Descargar la Presentación (2.2Mb)
[iii] Esto se trata en el Modelo de Responsabilidades de Macro Difusión a publicar en una etapa posterior.
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.
Cuando se habla sobre la difusión de BIM en una organización (micro) o en todo un mercado (macro), habitualmente emergen dos términos: descendente o ascendente.
La difusión DESCENDENTE (UP-BOTTOM) es cuando una autoridad ejerce una presión ordenando la adopción de una solución específica que percibe como favorable. Un buen ejemplo de una dinámica BIM macro descendente es el mandato BIM Nivel 2 de UK1 y los hitos de balance de propuestas BIM de Singapur2. A nivel micro, la difusión descendente sucede cuando la alta gerencia de una organización (independientemente de su tamaño y posición en la cadena de suministro) ordena la adopción de soluciones específicas. Mediante estas presiones – a veces coercitivas – las soluciones empiezan a difundirse a través de la cadena de mando y – si van acompañadas de educación e incentivos – se adoptan.
La difusión ASCENDENTE (BOTTOM-UP) hace referencia a la adopción de tecnologías, procesos y políticas desde la raíz, sin un mandato coercitivo. A nivel macro, esto sucede cuando pequeñas organizaciones o aquellas que se encuentran al final de la cadena de mando/suministro adoptan una solución o concepto innovador; lentamente la solución se convierte en una práctica común; y gradualmente se difunde hacia lo alto de la cadena de suministro/mando (como en el caso de Australia). De igual manera, a nivel micro, la difusión ascendente se da cuando empleados de la parte baja de la cadena de mando introducen una solución innovadora y – con el paso del tiempo – esta solución se convierte en conocimiento y es entonces cuando los cargos medios y de gerencia la adoptan.
Aunque estas dos dinámicas sean fácilmente perceptibles, existe una tercera dinámica, oculta a simple vista: el patrón de difusión RADIAL (MIDDLE-OUT)
La difusión radial la aplican todas aquellas organizaciones o individuos situados en la zona intermedia de sus ámbitos, entre la zona ‘baja’ y la ‘alta’. A nivel micro de una organización, se da cuando los jefes de equipo, directores de departamento y gerentes de línea impulsan aquello que han adoptado personalmente, hacia arriba y abajo de la cadena de mando. A nivel macro de mercado, la dinámica radial se aplica cuando organizaciones de tamaño medio (respecto al mercado – p.e. grandes contratistas en US) influyen en la adopción de una solución por parte de organizaciones más pequeñas de la parte baja de la cadena de suministro. También influyen o impulsan de forma activa a que organizaciones mayores, asociaciones o autoridades de la parte alta de la cadena de suministro/mando adopten, o eventualmente estandaricen, sus soluciones.
Fig.1 Actualizado May 2015: este modelo se conoce como modelo de Dinámicas de Macro Difusión (ver última versión)
Las diferentes organizaciones y mercados muestran una dinámica más que otra debido a una serie de variables sociales3 o impulsadas por el mercado4. Sin embargo, las dinámicas de difusión descendente, ascendente y radial son complementarias e incluso, mutuamente inclusivas. Pensar que una dinámica puede ser mejor que las otras es erróneo. Si bien existen algunas evidencias que una dinámica descendente fomenta tasas de adopción en una organización o un mercado más rápidas, no hay pruebas – aparte del maquillaje BIM y el ruido en twitter - que ello implique una inyección sostenible de flujos y entregables BIM.
Actualización de 26 Sep 2015: en el Canal de BIM Framework tienen a su disposición un video explicando Las Dinámicas de Difusión:
Piense sobre lo siguiente:
¿La adopción BIM en su organización es descendente, ascendente o radial?
Desde su punto de vista, ¿cuál de las tres dinámicas es más efectiva a una escala macro?
[1] El término ‘BIM Nivel 2’ o ‘Madurez Nivel 2’ que presenta el modelo de Bew-Richards (2008) realmente es un hito basado en el consenso para guiar y regular la adopción de BIM por etapas en la industria de Reino Unido. El uso del término ‘madurez’ es un poco desafortunado ya que estos niveles tienen una definición de balance (p.e. ¿a qué se refiere el Nivel 3?) y no se puede usar para medir/calificar la capacidad BIM de organizaciones.
[2] The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) tiene una serie de hitos de balance que cubren las propuestas BIM. Por ejemplo, establece Julio 2015 como hito para que los proyectos de arquitectura e ingeniería de nuevas construcciones > 5000m2 se presenten en BIM de forma obligatoria
[3] Consulte Las presiones isomorfas (presiones coercitivas, miméticas y normativas) - investigación llevada a cabo por DiMaggio y Powell (1983), recientemente adaptada para BIM por Cao, Li and Wang (2014):
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” Am. Sociol. Rev., 48(2), 147–160
Cao, D., Li, H. and Wang, G. (2014) 'Impacts of Isomorphic Pressures on BIM Adoption in Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management’ y Cao, D., Li, H. and Wang, G. (2014) 'Impacts of Isomorphic Pressures on BIM Adoption in Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,(preview published July 8, 2014).
[4] Las variables de mercado incluyen la oferta y demanda, los riesgos y recompensas, y una serie de presiones competitivas.
[5] Según Cooper y Zmud (1990), la adopción no es más que la segunda etapa de un proceso de difusión de seis etapas: iniciación, adopción, adaptación, aceptación, rutinización e infusión.
Cooper, R. B. and Zmud, R. W. (1990) 'Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach', Management Science, 36(2), pp. 123-139.
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.
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 tohttp://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:
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).
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.
When discussing BIM diffusion within an organization (micro) or across a whole market (macro), two terms typically pop-up: top-down and bottom up.
TOP-DOWN diffusion is a push by an authority to mandate the adoption of a specific solution it perceives as favourable. A good example of a macro top-down BIM dynamic is UK’s BIM Level 21 mandate and Singapore’s rolling BIM submission milestones2. At the micro level, top-down diffusion occurs when senior management within an organization (irrespective of its size and location within the supply chain) mandates specific solutions to adopt. Through these - sometimes coercive - pressures, solutions start diffusing down the authority chain and – if coupled with education and incentives – are adopted.
BOTTOM-UP diffusion refers to the grass-root adoption of technologies, processes or policies without a coercive mandate. At the macro level, this occurs when small organizations or those near the bottom end of the authority/supply chain adopt an innovative solution or concept; the solution slowly becomes a common practice; and gradually diffuses up the supply/authority chain (as is the case in Australia). Similarly at the micro level, bottom-up diffusion occurs when employees near the bottom end of the authority chain introduce an innovative solution and – over time – this solution is acknowledged and then adopted by middle and senior management.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
Although these two dynamics are easily noticeable, a third dynamic lies hiding in plain sight: the MIDDLE-OUT diffusion pattern.
Middle-out diffusion applies to all those organizations and individuals occupying the median space separating the ‘bottom’ from the ‘top’. At the micro organizational level, team managers, department heads and line managers push what they’ve personally adopted up and down the authority chain. At the macro market level, middle-out dynamic applies when mid-sized organizations (relative to the market – e.g. large contractors in the US) influence the adoption of smaller organizations down the supply chain. They also influence or actively encourage larger organizations, associations and authorities up the supply/authority chain to adopt and eventually standardise their solution.
Different organizations and markets display one dynamic more than the other due to a variety of market-driven3 and social variables4. However, top-down, bottom-up and middle-out diffusion dynamics are complementary and even mutually inclusive. It is a misconception that one dynamic can be better than the others. While there is some evidence that a top-down dynamic encourages faster adoption rates across an organization or a market, there’s no proof – BIMwash and twitter noise aside - that it leads to sustained infusion5 of BIM workflows and deliverables.
Update Sep 26, 2015: a short video now available explaining Diffusion Dynamics on the BIM Framework's Channel:
Think about this:
Is BIM adoption within your organization top-down, bottom-up or middle-out?
In your view, which one of the three dynamics is more effective at the macro scale?
[1] The term ‘BIM Level 2’ or ‘Maturity Level 2’ as based on the Bew-Richards model (2008) is actually a consensus-based milestone to guide and mandate staged BIM adoption across the UK industry. The use of the term ‘maturity’ is quite unfortunate as these levels have a rolling definition (e.g. what does Level 3 refer to?) and cannot be used to measure/qualify BIM capability within organizations.
[2] The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has a number of rolling mandates covering BIM submissions. For example, July 2015 is identified as the milestone for mandatory BIM submission for architecture and engineering design of new building projects > 5000m2.
[3] Market variables include supply and demand, risks and rewards, and a variety of competitive pressures.
[4] Refer to isomorphic pressures (coercive, mimetic and normative pressures) - research conducted by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and recently adapted for BIM by Cao, Li and Wang (2014):
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” Am. Sociol. Rev., 48(2), 147–160
Cao, D., Li, H. and Wang, G. (2014) 'Impacts of Isomorphic Pressures on BIM Adoption in Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management and Cao, D., Li, H. and Wang, G. (2014) 'Impacts of Isomorphic Pressures on BIM Adoption in Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,(preview published July 8, 2014).
[5] Accrding to Cooper and Zmud (1990), adoption is but the second stage of a six-stage diffusion process: initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization and infusion.
Cooper, R. B. and Zmud, R. W. (1990) 'Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach', Management Science, 36(2), pp. 123-139.
After introducing the basic differences between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity in Episode 11, and briefly discussing the many available and relevant maturity models in Episode 12, this post introduces a new specialized tool to measure BIM performance: the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI).
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
As an additional reminder, BIM Capability is the basic ability to perform a task or deliver a BIM service/ product. BIM Capability Stages (or BIM Stages) define the minimum BIM requirements - the major milestones that need to be reached by a team or an organization as it implements BIM technologies and concepts (Refer to Episode 8 or Figure 1 below). Having a ‘measuring tape’ to establish BIM capability is important because it is a quick yet accurate assessment of an organization’s ability to deliver BIM services. For example, using Capability as a metric, we can safely establish that an organization at Stage 3 is able to deliver more BIM services to a client or project-partner than an organization at Stage 1 or 2:
Figure 1. The Three BIM Capability Stages (replaced - latest version can be found here)
However, since BIM Capability Stages are established when minimum requirements are met; they cannot assess abilities (or lack of) beyond these minimum requirement. As a case in point, when using the Capability metric, two organizations using Tekla to primarily generate model-based steel details are said to be at BIM Stage 1. This is a useful bit of information because it sets these two organizations apart from all others still using CAD but tells us very little about their delivery speed, data richness or modelling quality. In fact, the two organizations may well be many experience-years apart without that being detected by the Capability scale. That’s why another metric (Maturity) is needed to assess and report on significant variations within service delivery and their underlying causes.
The term ‘BIM Maturity’ refers to the quality, repeatability and degrees of excellence of BIM services. In other words, BIM Maturity is the more advanced ability to excel in performing a task or delivering a BIM service/ product. Without measuring these qualities, there is no way of differentiating between ‘real’ abilities to deliver BIM services form blatant BIM wash.
To address this issue, the BIM Maturity Index[1] (BIMMI) has been developed by investigating and then integrating several maturity models from different industries[2]. BIMMI is similar to many Capability Maturity Models (CMM) discussed in Episode 11 but reflects the specifics of BIM technologies, processes and policies.
BIMMI has five distinct Maturity Levels: (a) Initial/ Ad-hoc, (b) Defined, (c) Managed, (d) Integrated and (e) Optimized. In general, the progression from lower to higher levels of BIM Maturity indicates (i) better control through minimizing variations between targets and actual results, (ii) better predictabilityand forecasting by lowering variability in competency, performance and costs and (iii) greater effectiveness in reaching defined goals and setting new more ambitious ones[3 & 4]. Figure 2 below visually summarizes the five Maturity Levels or “evolutionary plateaux"[5] followed by a brief description of each level:
Figure 2. The Five Maturity Levels (depicted at BIM Stage 1)
Maturity Level a (Initial orAd-hoc): BIM implementation is characterized by the absence of an overall strategy and a significant shortage of defined processes and policies. BIM software tools are deployed in a non-systematic fashion and without adequate prior investigations and preparations. BIM adoption is partially achieved through the ‘heroic’ efforts of individual champions – a process that lacks the active and consistent support of middle and senior management. Collaboration capabilities (if achieved) are typically incompatible with those of project partners and occur with little or no pre-defined process guides, standards or interchange protocols. There is no formal resolution of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities.
Maturity Level b (Defined): BIM implementation is driven by senior managers’ overall vision. Most processes and policies are well documented, process innovations are recognized and business opportunities arising from BIM are identified but not yet exploited. BIM heroism starts to fade in importance as competency increases; staff productivity is still unpredictable. Basic BIM guidelines are available including training manuals, workflow guides and BIM delivery standards. Training requirements are well-defined and are typically provided only when needed. Collaboration with project partners shows signs of mutual trust/respect among project participants and follows predefined process guides, standards and interchange protocols. Responsibilities are distributed and risks are mitigated through contractual means.
Maturity Level c (Managed): The vision to implement BIM is communicated and understood by most staff. BIM implementation strategy is coupled with detailed action plans and a monitoring regime. BIM is acknowledged as a series of technology, process and policy changes which need to be managed without hampering innovation. Business opportunities arising from BIM are acknowledged and used in marketing efforts. BIM roles are institutionalized and performance targets are achieved more consistently. Product/service specifications similar to AIA’s Model Progression Specifications[6] or BIPS’ information levels[7] are adopted. Modelling, 2D representation, quantification, specifications and analytical properties of 3D models are managed through detailed standards and quality plans. Collaboration responsibilities, risks and rewards are clear within temporary project alliances or longer-term partnerships.
Maturity Level d (Integrated): BIM implementation, its requirements and process/ product innovation are integrated into organizational, strategic, managerial and communicative channels. Business opportunities arising from BIM are part of team, organization or project-team’s competitive advantage and are used to attract and keep clients. Software selection and deployment follows strategic objectives, not just operational requirements. Modelling deliverables are well synchronized across projects and tightly integrated with business processes. Knowledge is integrated into organizational systems; stored knowledge is made accessible and easily retrievable[8]. BIM roles and competency targets are imbedded within the organization. Productivity is now consistent and predictable. BIM standards and performance benchmarks are incorporated into quality management and performance improvement systems. Collaboration includes downstream players and is characterized by the involvement of key participants during projects’ early lifecycle phases.
Maturity Level e (Optimized): Organizational and project stakeholders have internalized the BIM vision and are actively achieving it[9]. BIM implementation strategy and its effects on organizational models are continuously revisited and realigned with other strategies. If alterations to processes or policies are needed, they are proactively implemented. Innovative product/process solutions and business opportunities are sought-after and followed-through relentlessly. Selection/use of software tools is continuously revisited to enhance productivity and align with strategic objectives. Modelling deliverables are cyclically revised/ optimized to benefit from new software functionalities and available extensions. Optimization of integrated data, process and communication channels is relentless. Collaborative responsibilities, risks and rewards are continuously revisited and realigned. Contractual models are modified to achieve best practices and highest value for all stakeholders. Benchmarks are repetitively revisited to insure highest possible quality in processes, products and services.
...
In a future post, I’ll shed more light on the detailed BIM Competencies[10] that Capability and Maturity tools actually measure. For now, I’ll provide a sample BIM Performance Assessment summary generated using both metrics. Please note that - although the assessment below is based on my consultancy work - it has been significantly altered so that the ‘assessed’ organization cannot be identified. I’ve also removed most Performance Achievements (the useless positives), focused on Performance Challenges (the beneficial negatives) and added some explanatory notes [enclosed in brackets].
Sample Performance Assessment – Executive Summary
“...upon concluding a preliminary assessment of [organization name], the overall organizational BIM Performance has been tentatively established at 1a [Capability Stage 1, Maturity Level a] pending the provision of [specific artefacts]...
The [organization name] has been established at Capability Stage 1 [...because it] has actively employed [BIM software tool name] to generate [X number of projects] over the past [Y months/years] at a [utilization rate of Z%]...[other metrics]...none of these projects were collaborative with the exception of [pilot project name]...
The [organization name] has been established at Maturity Level a based on [a specific Maturity scoring system]....BIM Performance Achievements have been detailed in [document name] while BIM Performance Challenges have been detailed in [document name]...below is a summary of these Performance Challenges [grouped under the three main types of BIM Competencies]:
Technology: Usage of software applications is unmonitored and unregulated [different software tools are used although they generate very similar deliverables]. Software licence numbers are misaligned to staff requirements. 3D Models are mostly relied upon to only generate accurate 2D drawings [the data richness within the model is not being exploited]. Data usage and storage are not well defined. Hardware specifications are generally adequate but are non-uniform. Some computers fall well-below confirmed staff skills and their expected BIM deliverables [equipment replacement and upgrades are mostly treated as cost items - postponed whenever possible and committed-to only when unavoidable]. With respect to Networks, currently adopted solutions are not well integrated into the workflow [individuals and teams use whatever tools at hand to communicate and share files]. While there is an Intranet with a dedicated BIM section, the content is mostly static and not well suited to harvest, store and share knowledge [very few staff have administrative rights (or motivation) to upload information to the intranet].
Process:Senior leaders/managers have varied visions about BIM, and its implementation is conducted without a consistent overall strategy [as typical at this maturity level, BIM is treated as a technology stream with minimal consideration for its process and policy implications]. Change resistance is evident among staff [and possibly wide-spread amongst middle management]. The workplace environment is not recognized as a factor in increasing staff satisfaction/motivation [found to be not conducive to productivity – think of noise, glare and ergonomics]. While knowledge is recognized as an organizational asset, it is mainly shared between staff in an informal fashion [through oral tips, techniques and lessons learned].
Business opportunities arising from BIM are not well acknowledged. BIM objects [components, parts or families] are not consistently available in adequate numbers or quality. 3D model deliverables [as BIM products] suffer from too high, too low or inconsistent levels of detail. At the time of this assessment, it appears that more importance is given to [visual] quality of 2D representations than is given to 3D model accuracy [also, products and services offered by the organization represent a fraction of the capabilities inherent within the software tools employed]. There are no [overall] modelling quality checks or formal audit procedures.
BIM Projects are conducted using undocumented and thus inconsistent practices [there are no project initiation or closure protocols]. Staff competency levels are unmonitored by [and thus unknown to] management, BIM roles need clarification [roles are currently ambiguous] and team structures pre-date BIM. Staff training is not well structured and workflows are not well understood [in one instance, staff were not systematically inducted into BIM processes; in another, were confused about workflows and ‘who to go to’ for technical and procedural assistance].
Performance is unpredictable [management cannot predict BIM project duration or HR costs] and productivity appears to still depend on champions’ efforts within teams. A mentality of ‘shortcuts’ [working around the system] has been detected. Performance may be inconsistent as it is neither monitored nor reported in any systematic fashion [as typical at this Maturity Level, the organization had islands of concentrated BIM productivity separated by seas of BIM idleness/confusion].
Policy:The organization does not yet document its detailed BIM standards or workflows. There are no institutionalized quality controls for 3D models or 2D representations. The BIM training policies are not documented [current training protocols are out-dated] and auxiliary educational mediums are not provided to staff [training DVDs and the like]. Contractually, there is no BIM-specific risk identification or mitigation policy.”
The above assessment summary may not provide a glossy image of an aspiring BIM-enabled organization. However, such a list of challenges – pointed and revealing as it is - will help the organization’s management to identify where it needs to invest time and energy to enhance its BIM performance.
In summary, understanding Capability, Maturity and how to use both metrics to assess BIM Competencies can assist AECO stakeholders to determine their overall BIM performance levels. Once performance assessments are made, performance improvements will soon follow.
Updated Oct 23, 2015: A video is now available explaining the Point of Adoption model on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
Updated May 10, 2016: The model is now published as "Succar, B. and Kassem, M. (2016), Building Information Modelling: Point of Adoption, CIB World Congress, Tampere Finland, May 30 - June 3, 2016" - download: http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA9
[1] Note that I opted to use the term BIM Maturity Index rather than Model to avoid confusion.
[2] Succar, B. (2009) Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. IN Underwood, J. & Isikdag, U. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing.
[3] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4); pages 272-278
[4] McCormack, K., Ladeira, M. B., & Oliveira, M. P. V. d. (2008), Supply chain maturity and performance in Brazil. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4; pages 272-282
[6] Refer to 2008 AIA California Council, Model Progression Specifications (http://bit.ly/AIAMPS 70KB PDF document)
[7] Refer to 2008 Danish Government’s BIPS, Digital Construction 3D Working Method http://bit.ly/BIPS3D 2.2MB PDF)
[8] Refer to the 4 levels in knowledge retention in Arif, M. et al. (2009), Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1); pages 92-108.
[9] Nightingale, D.J. and J.H. Mize (2002), Development of a Lean Enterprise Transformation Maturity Model. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 3(1): p. 15.
[10] A definition of BIM Competencies has been provided in Episode 12 (endnote 2). You can also use the blog’s custom search engine to find it.
This post is about BIM Steps, those micro changes needed to implement Building Information Modelling within an organisation and then - by osmosis - throughout the whole industry. But before we introduce BIM Steps and in response to feedback received, I’ll partially revisit the BIM Stages topic (Episode 8) in an effort to invite more discussion.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
BIM Adoption: Stages and Steps
The adoption of BIM by an organisation will not happen unintentionally and definitely not in a single giant leap. In fact, it will be deployed through intentional decisions passing through major milestones referred to as BIM Stages. These stages – if well defined - are very useful to understand BIM concepts and visions but are - on their own - not usable in implementation. Further subdivisions are needed: smaller incremental changes that each organisation can make to reach each major Stage, mature within it and then attempt to reach another. These ‘feetstones’ or micro objectives are called BIM Steps. The difference between BIM Stages and Steps is that stages are radical or transformational changes while steps are incremental/evolutionary changesormaturity levels.
But why do we need to define stages to start with?
Update August 26, 2015: This post is now available in Italian through the good efforts of Lorenzo Nissim of the Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi). Article in English continues below:
Need for BIM Stages
BIM Stages - as introduced in BIM ThinkSpace Episode 8 - are part of a ‘BIM Framework’ and an underlying ‘BIM Theory’. I will not burden the blog readers with these but I want to highlight that Stage numbers, their definitions and underlying structures are based on ‘something’ more elaborate than a personal experience. The importance of BIM Stages lies in their observed ability to facilitate BIM deployment within organisations and – more generally - allow different industry stakeholders to:
Agree on a common vision (any defined vision can be agreed upon; undefined visions cannot...)
Generate a simplified implementation roadmap for organisations to follow
Simplify BIM terminology around fewer headings
Identify incremental and achievable steps between major stages
Provide benchmarks for business improvement
Allow organisations to assess themselves and others
To generate the above optimistic deliverables, BIM Stages have been structured using five relentless rules – stages must be:
Well defined (non-overlapping): BIM Stages should be unambiguous and non-contradictory. For example, an implementation step cannot exist in two Stages at the same time.
Generically Applicable: BIM Stages should apply equally to all disciplines, across all project lifecycle phases (Design, Construction and Operations) and throughout the industry’s hierarchy. So, whether you’re an owner, architect, engineer, contractor, sub-contractor or facility manager – BIM Stages should apply equally to you. They should also apply equally to teams, organisations and the whole Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry.
Revolutionary (non-evolutionary): BIM Stages are transformational or radical changes NOT incremental changes, usage types or maturity levels.
Linear: BIM Stages are logical progressions and cannot be skipped.
Cumulative: deliverables of one BIM Stage can be carried forward to the next Stage
Three BIM Stages: a reminder
As a reminder (please read Episode 8 before continuing), BIM implementation or BIM maturity levels can be subdivided into three consecutive stages:
BIM Stage 1: object-based modelling orMODELLING for short
BIM Stage 2: model-based collaboration or just COLLABORATION
BIM Stage 3: network-based integration or just INTEGRATION
Figure 1: BIM Stages - definitions
Which finally brings us back to BIM Steps, the main topic of this post...
BIM Steps: an introduction
The distance separating each of the above BIM Stages is quite large judging by the amount of changes expected at both organisational and industry levels. However, the passage from Pre-BIM to BIM Stage 1 and through each of the three stages is populated by many smaller steps that can be identified and thus fulfilled by willing organisations. These steps are either pre-empt a stage or are maturity levels within each of the stages.
Different step sets
The collection of steps that each organisation needs to fulfil to reach or mature within a BIM Stage across the continuum from pre-BIM to Integrated Project Delivery is driven by different perquisites for, challenges within and deliverables of each stage. It is therefore important to identify these different step sets:
A steps from pre-BIM Status (fixed starting point) leading to BIM Stage 1
Bsteps from BIM Stage 1 maturing towards BIM Stage 2
Csteps from BIM Stage 2 maturing towards BIM Stage 3
Dsteps are maturity levels within Stage 3 leading to Integrated Project Delivery1 – a continuously evolving target!
Figure 2: BIM Stages – step sets
Different Step types
Although many attributes of BIM innovation appear technological in nature, most changes demanded by its implementation do in fact relate to processes and policies (Episode 7). As an example, before achieving ‘database integration’ - an attribute of BIM Stage 3 - certain standards, procedures and data channels need to be available. Therefore, in order to generate adequate guides to fulfil implementation steps, it is important to differentiate between these challenges as each demands a different approach.
There are three types of steps leading to or transitioning between BIM stages:
Technology Steps
Technology Steps are milestones in software, hardware and networks. For example, the availability of a BIM tool allows the migration from drafting-based to object-based workflow (BIM Stage 1)
Process Steps
Process Steps are Leadership, Infrastructure, Human Resources and Products/Services. For example, collaboration procedures and database-sharing skills are necessary to allow model-based collaboration (BIM Stage 2).
Policy Steps
Policy Steps are contractual, regulatory and preparatory changes. For example, alliance-based and risk-sharing contractual agreements are pre-requisites to achieving integrated practices (BIM Stage 3).
Figure 3: BIM Stages – step sets
Final Note
This staged and stepped approach to BIM implementation will benefit organisations as it allows them to optimise their efforts and prioritise their actions. Each BIM Stage will act as(1) a place to start from, (2) a goal to aspire to or (3) a milestone along the way to Integrated Project Delivery (or whatever the industry considers to be its ultimate BIM-driven goal). The identification of smaller steps between stages will allow organisations to plan their next move, select their own change-pace and thus reach their aspired maturity levels with much less anguish, cost and frustration...
For Feedback, please comment below or click here...Thank you
Updated Aug 26, 2015: A video is now available explaining BIM Steps on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
Updated Dec 1, 2015: please note that the term Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) in the BIM Stages and BIM Steps models has been replaced with viDCO (virtually integrated Design, Construction and Operation). This is caused by changes in IPD's connotations that now refers to a type of contractual arrangement rather than a long-term vision. Thank you.
Many industry discussions affectionately expand on BIM’s far-reaching deliverables: seamless collaboration, construction sequencing, shareable databases and fully integrated project delivery. While all these possibilities are foreseen today and are becoming more readily accessible as we speak (type), it is important to understand the deployment road ahead. Such an understanding will help us focus on the task at hand, better allocate available resources and prepare for the BIM-flavoured future.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The previous episode has described the 1st dimension of the BIM Framework – ‘horizontal axis’ representing AEC players and their deliverables. It is now time to introduce the 2nd dimension – ‘vertical axis’ of BIM adoption. This episode intends to identify deployment milestones or ‘stages’ that AEC players pass through on their way to fully integrated practices. There are three stages/milestones:
·BIM Stage 1: Object-based modelling
·BIM Stage 2: Model-based collaboration
·BIM Stage 3: Network-based integration
Note that each of these stages is further subdivided into sequential steps. What separates ‘stages’ from ‘steps’ is that BIM Stages are transformational or radical¹ changes while BIM Steps are incremental² ones within them. In this post, we’ll focus our attention on identifying the transformational stages within BIM Nodes. We’ll do that after briefly describing the Pre-BIM status which insistently prevails within the AEC industry.
The Pre-BIM Status:
At the Policy front, the Pre-BIM status is characterised by adversarial relationships as contractual arrangements encourage risk shedding and over-the wall interactions. Moving to the Process front, there are huge dependencies on 2D documentation to describe 3D reality with all the problems this entails. Communication between different Players is less than adequate and project teams dismantle as projects reach a conclusion. Technology investment is low and data exchanges suffer from severe lack of interoperability³ between software applications...this surely cannot continue!
2D to 3D migration....BIM Stage 1:
After being wholly dependent on hand sketches, CAD and 3D visualisations, an increasing number of companies decide to cross the innovation chasm and invest in the object-based BIM applications (Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1: Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore
They quickly start to generate coordinated 2D documents and 3D visualisations from the BIM model but the parameter-rich model itself is not shared with other disciplines. Three-dimensional views and light-weight models (that may include object metadata but not active parameters - DWF, NWD, 3D PDF, KML files and the like) become the new phrases within a rejuvenated communication language. Through their adoption, these companies undergo ‘mild’ process change as they start generating a plethora of 3D views, quantities, specifications, what-if scenarios and other deliverables from the semantically-rich model. Since the BIM model is still single-disciplinary and the deliverables are mostly CAD-like documents, existing contractual relationships and liability issues persist....but not for long!
From modelling to collaboration...BIM Stage 2:
Two disciplines, each ‘owning’ a semantically-rich model, decide to collaborate. They exchange and share models/databases which may not include geometry (think of Gantt charts, assets and environmental databases as examples of shareable databases). The two companies may jointly co-author a single database (example using ‘worksets’ in Autodesk® Revit®), link two different proprietary formats (example linking Digital Project® to a Primavera® database) or exchange non-proprietary files (example IFC, CIS2 or SDNF files). This ‘interopation’ allows them to perform 4D time-studies, interdisciplinary clash detection and generate an impressive array of analysis-driven deliverables. It is here where ‘traditional’ contractual relationships, risk models and ‘tried and tested processes’ start to show signs of significant strain and – with the absence of clear policy guidelines - nascent imaginative solutions.
From collaboration to integration...BIM Stage 3:
This fulfillment of this stage is the compilation of all construction-efficiency dreams and BIM philosophies. At this stage, project lifecycle phases dissolve substantially and players interact in real-time to generate real benefits from increasingly virtual workflows. At this Stage, existing and fast improving technologies play enabling roles and one set of technologies play a pivotal role: the increasingly available Model Server, replication or other model-federating solutions. These specialised network-based technologies store, share and control multidisciplinary input/output from participating stakeholders. It is here where current contractual policies and project processes lose their sync with technological possibilities. Of course and over time, processes evolve and policies get developed to enable the full potential of semantically-rich models and externally references databases...it may be a long road ahead of us.
Figure 8.2: BIM Stages, a condensed view
The interesting thing about all these Stages is that necessary technology infrastructure currently exists or is being developed. Whether we’re discussing software, hardware or networks, all are emerging and maturing quite rapidly. Processes (albeit experimental) are starting to follow as innovative companies increasingly ally together and push the frontier. However, the biggest absentee is still the many Policy players (refer to classification in Episode 7) who are slow to react and generate the necessary guidelines, regulations, liability protection and educational programs necessary for systematic progress.
In summary
While Stage 1 only needs a BIM application and a champion and Stage 2 needs two players and the will to collaborate, Stage 3 needs much more than that. The Integrated Practice will need a systematic understanding followed by systematic consolidation of all relevant Technologies, Processes and Policies...It may be a long deployment road ahead of us but it’s surely a scenic drive!
Next Episode: understanding BIM Lenses
Update (July 20, 2015): A video is now available explaining BIM Stages on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
References:
1.Henderson, R. M. & Clark, K. B. (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9.
2.Taylor, J. & Levitt, R. E. (2005) Inter-organizational Knowledge Flow and Innovation Diffusion in Project-based Industries. 38th International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, USA.
3.NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The confusion in BIM discussions and implementations can be dramatically reduced by systematically analysing the larger-than-life concept. We’ll do that by subdividing Building Information Modelling into its basic components and then relate them back to each other in a – hopefully – meaningful and useful way.
As discussed in BIM Episode 6, there are three dimensions to every BIM discussion. The first dimension is what I term BIM Nodes – BIM circles if you wish – and it’s responsible for identifying industry’s stakeholders and their deliverables. The other two dimensions, BIM Stages and BIM Lenses, will be discussed in following posts.
So what do these BIM Nodes (Update: now called BIM Fields) represent and why are they needed?
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry includes a great number of ‘industry players’: owners, designers, regulators, builders and product/service providers. These ‘industry players’ in turn generate even a greater number of ‘industry deliverables’: designs, specifications, tools, construction products and specialised services. With careful inspection, all these players and deliverables can be grouped into three identifiable yet overlapping circles (Figure 7.1):
·The BIM Policy circle includes all players responsible for generating standards, guidelines andcontracts. These include AEC regulatory bodies, educational institutions and the like.
·The BIM Process circle includes all players directly responsible for delivering buildings and other construction products:schools, bridges, shopping centres, etc...These include owners, designers, contractors and whoever is involved in a project’s lifecycle.
·The BIM Technology group includes developers of tools necessary for the creation and management of building information models and other design-construction-operation technologies. These include software developers, equipment suppliers and product/service providers active within the AEC industry.
Figure 7.1: the BIM framework includes three interlocking Fields (circles) - Updated May 10, 2016 (Original Version)
Each circle includes a specific set of players who interact with each other and with players within other circles. As an example, Designers interact with Builders to generate Facilities– this is an internal interaction within the Process Node.Also Designers interact with Fire Authorities and other Regulatory Bodies to insure conformity with respective standards and codes – this is an external interaction between Process and Policy Nodes. Both types of interactions take the form of Push-Pull transfers between players (Figure 7.2). We’ll be discussing ‘product and knowledge transfers’ in other posts but for now consider AIs (Architect Instruction) and RFIs (Request For Information) as two examples of this push-pull behaviour.
Figure 7.2: Push-Pull interactions between industry players (External and Internal respectively) - Updated May 10, 2016 (Original Version)
BIM Nodes and sub-nodes not only interact but they also overlap. Overlapping occurs when players or groups work (or need to work) together to form a joint industry body (think of RAIA, IAI and similar organisations) or generate a joint industry deliverable. As an example, Policy and Technology circles overlap when their players work together to generate interoperability standards (IFCs are a striking example). Also, all three nodes overlap (or need to overlap) to generate National or International BIM Guidelines.
So really the importance of BIM Nodes – the first dimension of the BIM framework - lies in identifying interactions and overlaps between industry players. Once identified, it will be much easier to generate better modular manuals and more comprehensive BIM guidelines.
Update (July 20, 2015): A video now available explaining BIM Fields (previously BIM Nodes) on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
Building information Modelling can be a very difficult topic to define. Just try to discuss it with a colleague and - more probably than not - you'll end up discussing endlessly overlapping topics. For example, you start to discuss BIM's effcts on industry and you end up comparing software solutions. Or, the topic starts with how to collaborate around the digital model and the discussion shifts to argueing risk-shedding vs. risk-sharing, insurance coverage and design fees. It doesn’t stop there, if you try to explain to how a small-sized company typically migrates from 2D to 3D or implements a basic BIM tool and the conversation shifts uncontrollably to model-servers and complex integrated practices.
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer tohttp://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
This ‘confusion’ is not only detected at individual practitioners' level but is omnipresent in industry presentations, guidelines, writings and specialised forums. Just Google the term BIM and read the countless informed and not-so-informed entries about it. To highlight this issue, try reading the below argument which I rephrased from six different highly informed sources:
BIM is a catalyst for change(Bernstein, 2005) poised to reduce industry’s fragmentation(CWIC, 2004), improve its efficiency/effectiveness (Hampson and Brandon, 2004) and lower its high costs of inadequate interoperability(NIST, 2004).BIM is a methodology to manage the essential building design and project data in digital format throughout the building’s life-cycle (Penttilä, 2006). Building information modelling is a newapproach to describing and displaying the information required for the design, construction and operation of constructed facilities(CRC-CI, 2006)
Just by reading the bolded text of the above few sources (out of hundreds of definitions and assertions out there) and BIM is a sounding more like a super TLA – a belated Three Letter Acronym that defines nothing in particular. One is left wondering if BIM is something you can buy off the shelf? Is it a change process or a construction procedure? Is BIM a GSA requirement, an NBIMS guideline or what exactly? If it is all of the above then isn’t it true that the breadth of a definition is inversely proportional to its usefulness?
Figure 6.1: BIM's recurring themes
Faced with all this ‘BIM chatter’, AEC stakeholders will understandably find it difficult to pinpoint what they actually need to do to reap the promised benefits of BIM. The chatter causes the change process to sound more difficult, extended and complex than it should be...This need not be the case at all.
To clarify the BIM topic, a ‘systematic analysis’ of the BIM domain will need to be performed. This should hopefully yield a clear, methodical and fuller description of what BIM is, is NOT as well as how to implement it in an incremental and sustained fashion. To systematically analyse then understand a loosely-defined concept like BIM, we first need to subdivide it into its components and analyse the relationship between them. The next few BIM episodes will do just that.
Based on my ongoing research (academic and professional), I will attempt to simplify the discussion through ‘decomposing’ the BIM term into three complementary dimensions: BIM Nodes (players and deliverables), BIM Stages (evolutionary steps) and BIM Lenses (multidisciplinary analysis). I will later use these three dimensions to generate some BIM Steps – those elusive incremental steps needed to migrate from a 2D based workflow all the way towards an Integrated Practice.
Figure 6.2: BIM Framework: the three dimensions
To be continued; next Episode will discuss the first dimension - BIM Nodes (update: now called BIM Fields)
July 20, 2015: Video now available explaining the Tri-axial Model on the BIM Framework's YouTube channel:
CRC-CI (2006) Open Specifications for BIM: Sydney Opera House Case Study. IN Mitchell, J. (Ed.) Delivery and Management of Built Assets. Brisbane, Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation (click here for PDF)
CWIC (2004) The Building Technology and Construction Industry Technology Roadmap. IN Dawson, A. (Ed.) Melbourne, Collaborative Working In Consortium.
Hampson, K. & Brandon, P. (2004) Construction 2020: A Vision of Australia's Property and Construction Industry. Australia, CRC Construction Innovation.
NIST (2004) Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry. IN Gallaher, M. P. O. C., A. C.; Dettbarn, J. L., Jr.; Gilday, L. T. (Ed.), National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Penttilä, H. (2006) Describing The Changes In Architectural Information Technology To Understand Design Complexity AndFree-Form Architectural Expression. ITcon, 11, 395-408.
BIMe Initiative The BIMe Initiative is not-for-profit effort based on the BIM Excellence approach. The BIMe Initiative aims to improve the performance of individuals, organisations and project teams in the construction industry through (a) developing a modular language for information exchange; (b) Generating reliable industry-wide competency benchmarks; (c) promoting competency-based learning; and (e) developing intuitive tools and templates for all to freely use.
BIM Dictionary The BIM Dictionary, an online resource for all to freely use. The dictionary hosts terms specific to digital transformation in the construction industry. It hosts hundreds of terms with their descriptions, synonyms and abbreviations.
BIM ThinkSpace BIM ThinkSpace is one of the longest running blogs (first post was in Oct 2005) covering Building Information Modelling from an 'informed practitioners' perspective. It posts infrequently yet shares thought-provoking topics and valuable contributions from international guest authors.
BIM Framework A blog for researchers interested in adapting the BIM Framework (Succar, 2009). Each post focuses on one conceptual part and is linked to peer-reviewed papers.
BIM Excellence BIM Excellence (BIMe) is a research-based method to improve the BIM competency of individuals, organizations and project teams. BIMe uses specialised online tools to compare current abilities against project/client requirements and industry benchmarks.
ChangeAgents AEC ChangeAgents AEC is a BIM performance assessment and improvement consultancy operating since 2004 out of Melbourne, Australia.
Translations
Objectif BIM (French) BIM ThinkSpace Episodes are progressively being translated into French through the good efforts of Mr Patrick Riedo of Objectif BIM
BIMetric Lab (Spanish) A number of BIM ThinkSpace episodes are translated into Spanish through the good efforts of Mr Victor Roig of BIMETRIC (Barcelona, Spain)
Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi) BIM ThinkSpace episodes are progressively being translated into Italian through the good efforts of Mr Lorenzo Nissim and Ms Miriam Nissim of the Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi)
