Designing Buildings - User contributions [en]

BIM - it's about the Planet - Part 1

2015-05-20T08:54:49Z

Keith Snook:

'''Author: Keith Snook (with funding from [http://www.bre.co.uk/bretrust/ BRE Trust])'''

This paper is based on historical activity and signposts current activity in the UK but does, where appropriate make reference to developments and parallells elsewhere. It starts with and acknowleges the realisation that we must do something about the depletion of our planet’s resources and finishes with a suggestion that by joining the appropriate data together we stand a better chance of doing that.

In terms of the construction industry it moves from a quote from a leading architect made around 90 years ago through to a world where we are enveloped in data and undergoing an attitude change that proposes that as much data as possible should be freely avaialbe to enrich lives socially and in enterpise collaboratively. The role of the built environment and particularly the construction industry that produces it is the main focus of the paper, tracing that industry’s relative failings in communications, teamwork and adoption of technology.

BIM is the current push and there are high expectations for its capacity to enable the changes necessary and the UK is taking this very seriously, so much so in fact that the eyes of the world are now turned towards it and by considered measures it is now generally considered to be leading with it being highly likely that Standards and guidance prepared for the UK market will become internationalised. It will be up to the industry to capitlaise on this situation.

= '''Introduction – setting the scene''' =

The majority of papers on BIM - Building Information Modelling - tend to jump straight-in from a contemporary construction industry focus and concentrate on the technology angle. We risk however losing the wider context, including forgetting for example that the construction industry exists primarily to provide a built environment to facilitate other activities. In its potential for contributing to whole life data, BIM can help remind us of this. The construction industry in the UK has been the subject of many major reports in the last 100 years and we can also forget that these for the most part have each been a reaction to dissatisfaction of either specific aspects or generally a perceived poor performance. In order to put the application of the technology involved in BIM into a context this paper reviews ways in which the industry operates to deliver its products, picking up on themes from some of the many reviews, and links this to both the development of the environmental agenda and the emergence of the era of ubiquitous data [1].

= '''The environment''' =

There is no definitive date for the start of mass awareness of the environmental agenda; for some it is the early 1960s with pioneering publications, such as ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson in 1962 and early research findings starting to demonstrate trends, for others with the creation of early ‘action funds’ such as the Environmental Defence Fund in 1967 where a steep decline in the numbers of Osprey (Sea Eagle) caused alarm. For the mass photo-news and television oriented world a photograph taken on 24 December 1968 by Bill Anders an astronaut on the Apollo 8 space mission, might well serve the purpose. 

[[File:Fig 1 Earthrise.jpg|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 1 “Earthrise” (Image available freely from NASA)

With the barren lunar landscape in its foreground it symbolised the frailty of blue planet Earth and stimulated debate, action and awareness making it politically impossible for governments to continue to side-step the concerns previously expressed by engaged scientists and minority pressure groups. The path to where we are now has not been straight forward and agreement, particularly on action, seems to be harder to achieve notwithstanding increasing scientific consensus on imminent, predictable and irreversible effects of our influence. Of course even without the space mission(s) and the photograph we may well have arrived at the same place in our collective thinking but it provides a useful and emotive icon for the “start” particularly for those of us who remember its first publication.

So what has the environmental movement to do with BIM? Concepts initially restricted to environmental conservation have long since been supplanted by more holistic understanding of sustainable development [2] with the term “environment” being expanded to cover all that surrounds us. More often than not the term “sustainability” is left to stand on its own as the descriptor of an ambition or target. To be more than just subjective ideals, aspects of this or any other definition have to be measurable and to do that requires data. For example a popular expression is to aspire to ‘zero carbon’. The science on how to measure let alone achieve this is complex, opaque and imprecise but at least it is a concept involving a quasi-numerical value to aim at.

In the UK, the government hypothesis about BIM is direct on this. It refers specifically to carbon performance, is inclusive of economic value and is simply stated:

''“Government as a client can derive significant improvements in cost, value and carbon performance through the use of open sharable asset information” [3] ''

BIM is seen as a way of facilitating this as asset information is derived from data and some of that data will increasingly come from BIM, more will come from related data sets such as AIM (Asset Information Models) and others so far not ascribed an acronym but which will go on to be a part of ‘Big Data’ [4].

= '''What is data? ''' =

As we shall see in the context of BIM and the implementation of the current UK government construction policies leading the way for the rest of the market, particular data can be quite specifically described and identified and indeed this is what most of the activity and effort has been about; but more generally what is it and how does BIM data fit into the wider ‘open data’ initiatives?

Data is a plural of datum which means fact. It is generally represented by digits and symbols and theoretically if kept to this simplicity it is universally interpretable. The term is also used to represent values in a qualified form such that increasing the level of qualification decreases the universality of interpretation. So in this common use of the term it enters a grey zone between its purest form and information; this grey zone becomes an important issue in compatibility of systems that operate with the data. Information is knowledge that makes sense and produces meaningful results from data.

= '''Ubiquitous data''' =

That UK government statement does not say ‘BIM’ directly and that is where the notion of ubiquitous data enters the argument: Data is now everywhere and we do not know (yet) how best to use most of it creatively. Ubiquitous data includes social, mobile, big data, analytics, cloud, software as a service, process, and more recently, the [http://successfulworkplace.com/2012/11/05/microsoft-missed-out-on-the-internet-of-things-are-you-ready/ Internet of Things]. In forty years we’ve moved from an analogue society of paper and fixed telephone to a place where we are rapidly representing, our entire world as a digital landscape. Indeed the Earthrise photograph, or at least how it got to be taken, can be emblematic of this aspect too. The equivalent to the rooms of computing power at the time of that mission can now be installed in one device along with equivalent in digital storage of the paper drawings and specifications that would have been produced to create the Saturn launch vehicle used in the mission. Even more contemporarily it could be held in ‘the cloud’ and rapidly accessed on a smart-phone. 

[[File:Fig 2 Digital infrastructures illustration of Facebook activity in 2010.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 2 Digital infrastructures – illustration of Facebook activity in 2010 (published as creative commons by Mark Zuckerberg; founder and CEO of Facebook)

Digital infrastructures have to support our ideas and interactions and be expansive so that through them we can make sense of everything physical, such as location, direction, acceleration, presence, contact, pressure, proximity, texture, temperature, gestures, odour, sound and nothing (absence of anything presently measurable). Sensors, applications, logs, and human interactions feed the process which in turn enables automation and human decision making. Analysis cycle times reduce and are more precise and so better inform decisions, help eliminate waste and error and enable enhanced interaction in a measured physical world. This is all with us now in popular applications that we have already begun to take for granted such as (often free) route planning and recording apps for our Smart Phones that relate personal data (age, weight, heart rate etc) to GPS data for example and produce information such a power output, calories burned and much more. Similar may not be overtly happening in construction but the fuel for this technology is data and BIM is data. Data about our built environment and whilst its present use, primarily in the service of construction design and process might hardly dent the above aspirations or comparisons, its adoption into full life cycles will make it become ever more significant and part of the ‘Big Data’ jigsaw puzzle.

= '''Open Data''' =

The word ‘open’ indicates a significant move encouraging openness for the greater good in contrast to existing norms that emphasise ownership and advantage. Clearly commercial advantage and intellectual right continues to be important and respected but the movement is about freeing up all that does not genuinely need such protection. In the UK the Cabinet Office published the Open Data Strategy in June 2012 and hot on its heels the Open Data Institute (ODI) was founded in by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Professor Nigel Shadbolt with £10m start-up funding (2012 – 2017) from the Technology Strategy Board. It is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, company limited by guarantee with the aim of catalysing the evolution of open data culture to create economic, environmental, and social value. It helps unlock supply, generates demand, creates and disseminates knowledge to address local and global issues through collaboration, incubation, nurturing and mentoring new ideas, and promoting innovation.

Internationally the G8 Nations Open Data Strategy and Charter [5] (2013) sets out a set of principles that will be the foundation for access to, and the release and re-use of, data made available by G8 governments. They are: 
*Open Data by Default 
*Quality and Quantity
*Useable by All 
*Releasing Data for Improved Governance
*Releasing Data for Innovation 

= '''IT in construction''' =

It is often said that the construction industry is behind other industries in its use of IT and at face value this is probably true though such statements are often supported by uncomfortable comparisons and lack of understanding of some of the issues. The complexity and transient nature of the relationships involved in the construction of the built environment is generally held as a reason (or excuse depending on viewpoint) for this backwardness. The industry has remained disjointed in its business structures and adversarial [6] in the legal frameworks that relate the parts to the whole. In this context it is unsurprising that the various fragmented parts of the total process have apparently been reluctant to invest [7] in IT solutions that themselves have been for the most part aimed at providing particular business-discrete or process-discrete applications.

For example even with BIM and its implication of collaboration the term “lonely BIM”, used to describe one discipline working in isolation with the technology, is not generally used as one might think in a pejorative way but used more to suggest that the protagonist is heroically doing the best they can under the circumstances. However logical there has been very little imperative or obvious reward for anyone to beneficially own the unification of the discrete parts. Where it is addressed the business model is typically to cover the costs from deflecting the process risks and the methodology has been invariably through exercising quite punitive contractual relationships rather than creative management processes. Similarly and confronted with such a marketplace there have been few incentives for the IT industry to present solutions or for any individual parts of the construction industry to commission holistic solutions. Any efforts, and there have been some, have largely been left to small bands of enthusiasts, sometimes ‘borrowing’ time from understanding and sympathetic employers and a few academics. The passion behind essentially pro-bono efforts and the preciousness of academia can sometimes prove as divisive as the commercial pressures that their efforts set out to question. 

Many official reports on the industry identified the structural weaknesses as contributory to habitual ingrained and almost anticipated poor performance. Evidence for this occurred in the application of first construction industry Key Performances Indicators (KPIs) in the early 2000s. There was some pressure to have certain performance measures, particularly related to design issues, which could score more than 10/10 in order to highlight those cases where, for example, good design has genuinely created something that significantly exceeds demands and expectations. The mathematical logic of this approach was not unreasonably questioned but reluctantly there was agreement to include instead some additional questions in the data collection of the kind “did the performance exceed expectations”. This missed the point being pursued but was enlightening in another way. What subsequently happened was that this box was quite frequently selected but accompanying very ‘middling’ numerical scores indicating that expectations of the industry are institutionally low. 

What should be a turning point, albeit that there are still threats from ingrained cultures and custom is the confluence of: 
*IT in the form of BIM (and systems that surround it),
*IT in the rapid growth and use of digital media particularly in a social setting which is informing more formal processes and facilitating blisteringly rapid change,
*Emerging patronage for new processes in construction that challenge the status quo.

These now occupy the same space and the timetabled ramped approach to the technology aspects (see Fig 4) also helps provide a platform to address the industry cultural and custom issues by the provision of authoritative guidance. 

= '''UK construction industry operation''' =

The Coordinated Project Information codes were issued in 1987 and included a promotional video the opening scene of which is an animation of soldiers at the battle-front in the Crimea (~1850s). They are sending a vitally important message via several messengers to battalion HQ: ''“Send reinforcements – we are going to advance”''. Through various stages of distortion and mishearing that message arrives at HQ as ''“Send three and four pence – we are going to a dance”''.

[[File:Fig 3 the early CPI and coordinated documents.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 3 the early CPI (large logo) and coordinated documents (small logo)

This simple, humorous, often quoted and no doubt apocryphal scene captures one of the most significant issues that construction has failed to convincingly address. As an industry it has risen to all kinds of technical challenges, produced the most spectacular feats of engineering and breathtaking architecture and design; but it has failed to get its communications working effectively. There have been many efforts to both identify the difficulties and address them with perfectly reasonable, logical and sometimes pragmatic guidance. 

= '''Industry reviews - Lutyens to Egan – a selection''' =
*Not technically a review but a good line-in-the-sand starting point; renowned and respected architect Edwin Lutyens (1869 – 1944) in a frustrated response to a richly artistic but information poor trend in architectural drawings of the time said ''“ a working drawing is a letter to builder telling precisely what to build not a picture to charm….”''
*''“''The Bossom Report” – formally titled:'' Reaching for the Skies ''1934 identified fragmentation, inefficiency and adversarialism as the critical problems
*“The Simon Report” – formally titled:'' The placing and management of contracts for building and civil engineering works ''1944 in addressing the plans for post war rebuilding clearly equated lowest tender methods with lower standards and identified insufficient pre contract preparation and problems of indefinite and inequitable sub contracts.
*“The Banwell Report” – (also) formally titled: ''The placing and management of contracts for building and civil engineering works ''1964 recommended what we would now refer to as more collaborative processes using less adversarial relationships.
*“The Tavistock Report” - formally titled: ''Interdependence and Uncertainty: A study of the building industry,'' 1966 noted the crippling effect of fragmentation (and actually rather summed it all up in its imaginative title).
*“The PIG Report” - formally titled: ''Project Information - its content and arrangement A report and proposals on the way forward'' 1978 By the Project Information Group (PIG) of the Department of the Environment NCC Standing Committee on Computing & Data Co-ordination. This also called on research such as that reported in ''BRE Current Paper 18/73 “Working drawings in use” ''and ''BRE Current Paper 60/76 “Coordinating working drawings'' and went on to recommend (and fund) the creation of the CPI documents mentioned above and to set up the interdisciplinary body that maintains their contemporary versions and other publications and services to this day - CPIc[8] (fig 3) 
*Latham 1994 [9] and Egan 1998 [10] again recognised the issues and, among other observations, both authors effectively said to the industry “why have you not adopted these (CPI) protocols?”. On neither occasion did the industry provide a reasoned response to the question. 

These are a selection of the better known reports and, in the light of what has transpired, one might only say ‘influential’ with some qualification.

= '''“Avanti” and “Building Down Barriers”''' =

In a programme funded by the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI 2002) the CPI protocols were used in a mandated way on a series of projects. Otherwise they were all ‘ordinary’ building projects with a spread of technologies across what we would now call level 0 and 1 with a hint of level 2 on some as defined in fig 4 – the Bew - Richards BIM maturity graph. The projects were all fairly conventional, and used normal professional appointments, contractual arrangements, insurances, penalties etc. The programme was called ''Avanti – ICT enabled collaborative working'', and the only difference compared to other projects of the time was that they were each facilitated by individual mentors who knew the ins and outs of the relevant protocols including some that were in draft at that time such as documentation that was to evolve into BS1192 – 2007. 

[[File:Fig 4 BIM Maturity copyright obtained Bew Richards.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 4 BIM Maturity Graph in an early published form – Copyright obtained Bew Richards

Avanti reported in 2007 and on average showed savings in line with those expected in the current BIM programme of around 20 – 25%. Individual savings recorded for particular activities were even more startling: 
*Early commitment offering up to 80% saving on implementation cost on medium size project
*50-85% saving on effort spent receiving information and formatting for reuse
*60-80% saving on effort spent finding information and documents
*75-80% saving in effort to achieve design co-ordination
*50% saving on time spent to assess tenders and award sub-contracts
*50% saving on effort in sub-contractor design approval

A further initiative with a promising title "Buidling down Barriers" [11] analysed the reasons for ‘initiative failures’ of the past and ironically also predicted its own failure in an early passage where it stated:

''“The reason why the numerous reports between 1929 and 1994 have failed to have any impact on the performance of the construction industry is because the industry continues to be blind to its failings. It is also unwilling to measure its performance, particularly the impact of fragmentation and adversarial attitudes.”'' 

''Building Down Barriers'' also had good patronage from the UK military as a very experienced client for a substantial built portfolio but even with its backing through demonstration projects and rather like Avanti, ''Building Down Barriers'' was seen by the rest of the industry primarily as a research experiment – exciting, fulfilling and a glimpse of a possible future for those involved but with the majority of them subsequently moving on to new projects procured and operated in a conventional way. Exposure to these projects slightly swelled the ranks of those individuals convinced by the methods and committed to improvements but they were still very much in the minority and mostly then with very little influence in the face of the complacency identified in that passage from the report. However with the emergence of the current government stimulated “BIM agenda” a gratifying number of those involved in or having knowledge of both ''Avanti'' and ''Building down Barriers'' and other research have emerged and, several years on, are operating in positions of influence. 

= '''Value and Quality''' =

Value and quality come and go out of fashion as valid subjects and there was much interest from government in the ‘Value, price mechanism’ post Latham and shortly after that the Design Quality Indicators (DQIs) were developed by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) and operate to this day albeit with limited take-up. They are implicit if not prominent in the current ‘BIM agenda’ and it is worth briefly considering them further as they are poorly understood terms. Most of the industry reports previously noted concentrated on issues either directly measurable in financial terms or resolvable to financial terms with very little manipulation. The current BIM initiative quite often uses the term ‘value’ rather than ‘cost’ which is an important, though it seems often not realised, distinction that also relates to ‘quality’ and other subjective concepts. Value and quality can be difficult to measure particularly in terms that are comparable. Richard Saxon in the 2005 report ''BE Valuable'' defined a simple relationship for value:

'''Value = What you get''' / '''What you give''' 

albeit that he notes that subjective and personal assessments for measuring the quantities of “what you get” and “what you give” must be used. Clearly, a result greater than unity is a positive (good) value outcome and less than unity is negative (bad). 

Value can be broken down to various types as identified by Dr Sebastian Macmillan in ''The value handbook'' [12]''. Exchange value'' is easy to quantify monetarily for example (it is often referred to as ‘book value’ and will appear on asset registers) and there are systems such as BREEAM that address ''environmental value'' in quantifiable terms. ''Image value'' can generally be assessed in context by those to whom it is important and for some endeavours ''use value'' might conform to a fairly precise algorithm, eg factory efficiency, but ''social value'' and ''cultural value'' may be difficult to reduce to simple monetary terms. 

Quality is technically fairly easy to define (there is a British Standard / ISO definition) and measure but the difficulty comes more from misuse as the term is often used loosely for example to describe gratuitous opulence rather than effectiveness or fitness for purpose or even beauty. Government funded research at BRE contemporary with that for the CPI codes focused on a long term objective and observational study of the achievement of quality on UK construction sites and produced interesting results that did not support common perception. The emphasis on objective research is important in this. Research based on typical survey or structured interview techniques as would be more likely now would have probably produced different results for the same reasons as the failure to adopt better working practices noted in the ''Building Down Barriers''. The construction industry has not embraced attempts at self-contemplation or measurement and has taken precious little notice of any applied to it by third parties, including BRE even when it was a government funded research laboratory. Therefore the industry self-perception, which is what inquisitorial rather than observational techniques tend to expose, is likely to provide a biased picture. The BRE research [13] contradicted commonly cited industry rhetoric which often displayed almost feudal attitudes in placing responsibility for failures with trades people or other operatives as a default. The research, which was not distracted by industry opinions or prejudices, showed that management and professional failures to do with information are responsible for far more compromises of the quality of the product than those directly caused by site works or operatives. On the issue of skill for example it found that there was abundant skill in those properly trained for the job albeit at times there were simply not enough skilled people to match workloads. By far the single largest culprit for failures of quality however was ''missing or inadequate project information ''[14]''.'' Which again directs us to consider BIM and particularly the UK government led initiative which emanates from the Government Construction Strategy. 

= '''The technology''' =

What we now know as BIM may not go quite as far back as the Lutyens quote but certainly goes back to the 1960s – the era of “Banwell” and “Tavistock”. Put very simplistically, and perhaps even patronisingly, the development of computing has in part been a story of a universal solution with huge potential looking for problems to address. Applications in manufacturing are familiar and there were enlightened thinkers from both computing and construction who had realised that the built environment would also be a very likely place. Indeed not just the “built environment” but environment more generally as developments in mapping (Geographic Information Systems – GIS) have run in parallel with those for construction. The first mass impact of computing was to business generally where computers were enthusiastically introduced to automate tedious tasks. This put computers inside organisations and increased their familiarity. It was also the start of the idea of integrated business systems with forward thinkers envisaging a situation where data would only emerge for uses that require human intervention and not for it to re-emerge for such things as transfer between operations if no human intervention was necessary. This is an ideal we are still pursuing, its original conception having been severely hampered by the development of competing proprietary systems for the most part addressing solitary purposes and functions and parts of complex processes rather than the whole. This would also become an issue with CAD and BIM systems.

For construction, creating detailed technical drawings (as distinct from design drawings) was identified as one of those “tedious tasks” and application of computing to this became CAD in the form Computer Aided Drafting. The same acronym is used for Computer Aided Design with many confusingly using the two synonymously. As early as 1962 Douglas C. Englebart makes suggestions of the shift from just Drafting to Design in his paper ''Augmenting Human Intellect'' [15]. Perhaps being an engineer rather than an architect himself his cited ‘architectural design’ example, focuses on technical rather than aesthetic design aspects.

''“The architect next begins to enter a series of specifications and data – a six-inch slab floor, twelve-inch concrete walls eight feet high within the excavation, and so on. When he has finished, the revised scene appears on the screen. A structure is taking shape. He examines it, adjusts it. These lists grow into an ever more-detailed, interlinked structure, which represents the maturing thought behind the actual design.”'' 

It does however introduce concepts of what we now know as parametric object based design involving a relational database; or (now) BIM for short. 

In construction and with the move from research into viable commercial systems during the 1970s and 80s much of the development activity became directed towards further reducing the tedium and cost of drafting and, for the more forward thinking, creating parametrically accurate objects linked to other relevant data. Virtually all development however had the objective of producing reliable drawings, and schedules, to fit into the normal contractual, legal and business processes of construction whether in the UK, US or Europe (or elsewhere – Finland for example has always been at the forefront of the subject). With much of it having been based in research and at that time there being little imperative for considering open or interoperable systems, improvements continued in the computing aspects and software advanced (within the scope of also rapidly improving hardware) but the end game was still servicing the industry business norms and to a limited extent advancements in visualisations and graphical rendering. Whilst the earlier list of reports and the sometimes bleak messages within them about these norms is confined to the UK, most other regions had broadly similar issues with interdisciplinary relationships and there was little reference to using information technology to address these issues. Perhaps there should have been more in that the sponsoring body for the 1978 UK “PIG” report was the “Project Information Group (PIG) of the Department of the Environment NCC Standing Committee on Computing & Data Co-ordination”, but the report focused on the observed problems, with frequent references to BRE research, and bizarrely bearing in mind the scope implied in its title, did not mention computer applications. 

Another aspect, particularly in respect of commercial development in the early years was the human/computer interface and there was a period when the software and processing power/potential was running well ahead of this aspect as in the laboratory interface issues are generally not such an imperative. A watershed occurred between 1980 and 1985 in the commercial application of interface systems, led by the mouse, that we are familiar with now. 

In the mid to late 1980s there was a discernible split in development effort. The first was towards efficiencies in the construction process which is where the first references to time being the 4th dimension in what was to become BIM were made. The other was continued development of design aspects and simulations. 

= '''Becoming virtual''' =

In 1982 in Budapest, Hungary, work started on what is generally reckoned to be the first BIM software. Current versions of this software are in use today, they are favoured by Mac users and used mainly on small to medium sized construction projects to which it is particularly well suited. Inspired to make something to cater for more complex projects the same group developed software which following purchase by a much larger software company in 2000 is now one of the most ubiquitous Architectural BIM authoring tools with versions for other disciplines also in the portfolio. 

Prior to this acquisition, which changed the company’s commercial landscape by adding a highly functional proprietary tool to their portfolio, the company had teamed up with the International Alliance for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability Interoperability] (IAI – later to become BuildingSmart [16]), to produce a particularly altruistic film called “The End of Babel” [17]. The film promotes open systems and particularly the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) [18] that AIA had just started to develop. It uses the famous story of the building of Babel as an analogy with the lack of system interoperability and, albeit an American production, was presented by a UK television household name of the day on technology, James Burke. From his script: 

''"The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel Tower of Babel], one of the biggest construction projects undertaken. Designed to reach the heavens. But the engineers couldn't finish the job. Halfway through everybody working on the job was stricken with inability to understand what the other fellow was saying. They were all still talking......but they weren't communicating. That incident was supposed to have taken place in around 5,000 BC. And we've been trying to understand each other ever since''." 

That vision in the film remains an objective of the current BIM initiative in the UK and probably also elsewhere as whist it focuses on the technology and the ambition for IFCs, the underlying story is about total collaboration and cooperation in order to achieve the goal.

Another approach to design collaboration is software which is solely designed to coordinate across varying file formats and include other features such as data collection, construction simulation and clash detection.

Simulation programs, many aimed at environmental issues, have been developed that work with imported models and recently BIM authoring tools have provided inbuilt simulation capability also. More recently still the increase in hand held devices has been recognised and the niche of rapid conceptualisation using such devices is being addressed by software providers including those from outside the established construction software providers and including the power houses behind global data searching.

The last significant player (for now) in the technology support is collaboration software. The message is finally being accepted at the leading edge that the multitudes of designers, consultants, project managers, construction contractors and sub-contractors brought together in a temporary organisation for the term of a project need to be able to communicate in a controlled and reliable manner with much of that communication being at data level. Only then can they start to operate effectively and efficiently as a team. The leading providers of collaboration software have also recognised the basic project stages such as design and contract preparation, construction and contract completion and operate and maintain; and are engaged in making their tools applicable throughout it. Indeed in the UK the government is funding a master ‘digital Plan of Work’ in order that all sectors can adopt a common structure. The gulf between the information involved in the construction and operation of a facility has been identified for some time and much effort is now becoming concentrated on that.

= '''Creative tension''' =

Related to the introduction of the technology there is a tension within the education of creative designers such as architects. The argument suggests that creativity could suffer in the face of expediency and this is probably best explained by using a simple example. BIM platforms typically represent walls, for example, as objects with layers and these layers are defined in terms of the depth and height and are then extruded along the length of a line. The program then has the ability to calculate dimensional properties such as the volume of material contained within the wall assembly and to create wall sections and details easily. However by definition this type of workflow is based on the existing buildings, common industry standards and conventional technology and solutions and therefore a project which is produced in BIM authoring software which emphasises these methods is likely to reinforce existing paradigms rather than contribute to developing new ones that advance the art and science. This is, or certainly the fear of it is, further exacerbated by the proliferation of BIM Libraries which, rather like standard details in line-drawn form from previous generations, are viewed with some suspicion. 

These perceived limitations of parametric flexibility and geometry sculpting has led to the development of systems supporting non uniform rational basic splines (NURBS). These platforms have provided the power to iterate and transform for complex and provocative architectural forms and are favoured by those wishing to explore forms involving organic shapes and for projects such as those related to infrastructure where, for example, natural landform shapes inform or become a part of the design. NURBS is now increasingly incorporated into more generally available in software.

[[File:Fig 5 NURBS.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 5. NURBS surface defined by control points over a two-dimensional parameter field. (Creative commons: Wikimedia.org)

= '''BIM and the UK Government Construction Strategy [19]''' =

Whilst private sector client bodies, design consultants, construction contractors and others have variously seen advantages of BIM and implemented aspects of BIM on projects it is the Government Construction Strategy (2011) that is the authoritative origin for the government led initiative that is now the primary focus for the application of BIM in the UK. The key sentence within the strategy for this is: 

''“2.32 Government will require fully collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data being electronic) as a minimum by 2016''.” 

This and the detail surrounding it, not least a fully detailed “BIM strategy” [20], has taken much of the attention and an important feature is the inclusion of a premise that the government as a client for construction needs to improve and indeed become exemplary. For government this uniquely means committing to and publishing a rolling programme of procurement intentions. This is an important aspiration for an industry that is reluctant to make significant capital investment, is one of the most sensitive to economic cycles and is wary of an historic trend of being used as a fiscal regulator by successive governments. More generally and an aspect that has more potential to be replicated in the private sector is creating defined data expectations at predetermined points within individual projects (fig 6) 

[[File:Fig 6 Information exchanges and client delivery points.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 6 Information exchanges and client delivery points set against generic work stages (from Govt. BIM Task force web site) 

The provision of explicit individual project data provides for a greater accuracy in evaluating that work in terms of quality, time and cost. It is presumed, and at present can only be hoped, that this client facing subtlety of the whole initiative is not lost when translated for private procurement when the distinctions between capital and operational budgets or even simply short and longer term benefits generally are in apparent commercial conflict brought about by silo thinking. Government has also identified a number of projects on which to test the emerging procedures being developed to accommodate both new working practices and apply methods including BIM software. Fig 7 shows an example of a chart from one of these early projects illustrating the high level data requirements set against the project work stages (running along the top). The information or data sets that respond to the data requirements will then generate definite client actions and decisions that allow the project to progress without the lack of certainty typical in much construction procurement. 

[[File:Fig 7 Project information strategy and data requirements.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 7 Project information strategy and data requirements. (from Govt. BIM Task force web site) 

Describing the current incarnation of BIM in the UK invariably and logically starts with the “Bew/Richards maturity graph”. This has been used to guide and map the production of critical industry documentation on the subject as a part of a “roadmap” to the standards and other document development to support the implementation of BIM (fig 8). In 2014 the definitive items of such guidance for ‘level 2’ were determined. Each of these documents has further references to others necessary to complete the story. 

They are: 
*PAS,1192-2 Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling [21] 
*PAS 1192-3, [http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Details/52072 Specification for information management for the operational phase of construction projects using building information modelling] 
*BS 1192-4, UK Implementation of COBie 
*CIC BIM protocol, 
*Government Soft Landings, 
*Classification - to be completed in 2015 
*Digital Plan of Works - to be completed in 2015 

[[File:Fig 8 The BIM Maturity Graph.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 8 The BIM Maturity Graph – a part of the UK roadmap for BIM. (The Roadmap from Govt. BIM Task force web site is a live document updated from time to time to reflect progress and necessary changes) 

With the clarification of this list it is possible to more positively define what ‘level 2’ BIM is and to create focused education and training to establish and test core competencies. Courses both in formative education and particularly in re-educating practitioners through CPD and other training is now taking shape. 

The most significant of the documents listed is PAS1192–2 which in large part is focused on the Information delivery cycle at fig 9. The information delivery cycle is explained in detail below and selected definitions from the Standard are also included to aid its understanding. It shows the cycle laid-out against a process plan. This plan will eventually be set out, when work is complete (mid 2015), to be the digital Plan of Work. 

An important point, probably the most important point about the development of the UK BIM maturity levels is that whilst the line between level 2 and level 3 can be, and is, described in technical terms and in terms of the information handling processes and protocols it is primarily determined by the ability to operate within normal contractual, legal and other broadly familiar arrangements up to the line. What this means is that no wholesale rewriting of construction contracts is necessary although it does encourage a change of approach and certain modification as provided for in the CIC BIM Protocol which also introduces a new task of information management which is covered in a referred document called the Outline Scope of Services for the Role of Information Management. The Protocol is a contractual document that when introduced takes precedence over existing agreements (so a fairly significant amendment to standard forms) and places an obligation on parties to provide distinct elements of their services at predetermined stages in a project. The application of the Protocol is covered in guidance also prepared by the CIC. This guidance also covers aspects of professional indemnity insurance - often cited as a stumbling block for collaborative methods. 

[[File:Fig 9 The information delivery cycle at the heart of BIM.png|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 9 The information delivery cycle that is at the heart of PAS 1192-2. (Copyright obtained from Mervyn Richards)

----

'''Notes for fig 9''' 

The information delivery cycle has two points of entry. For new build projects, at the “Need” box (top right in the fig), for projects that are part of a larger portfolio or estate, or for work on existing buildings and structures, it is at the right-hand arrow “Assessment” which draws on the information in the Asset Information Model (AIM). Here PAS1192-2, which deals with the Capital expenditure phase, references PAS1192-3, which deals with the Operational expenditure phase. These points of entry are also referenced in the Common Data Environment – CDE (central zone in the fig). The information delivery cycle (blue arrows) shows the generic process of identifying a project need, procuring and awarding a contract, mobilizing a supplier and generating production information and asset information relevant to the need. This cycle is followed for every aspect of a project, including the refinement of design information through the seven project stages shown (green). Work is on-going defining these as an accepted industry standard but well known systems such as the RIBA Plan of Work (2013) can be used.

The pale green wedge represents the CDE that collects information through the lifecycle for management, dissemination, exchange and retrieval processes.

Red circles indicate information exchanges between the project team and the employer in answer to the Plain Language questions defined in the employer’s information requirements (EIR). Information exchanges between project team members are indicated by small green circles. '''Selected definitions from PAS1192-2asset information model (AIM) ''' maintained information model used to manage, maintain and operate the asset.
*common data environment (CDE): single source of information for any given project, used to collect, manage and disseminate all relevant approved project documents for multi-disciplinary teams in a managed process
*employer’s information requirements (EIR): pre-tender document setting out the information to be delivered, and the standards and processes to be adopted by the supplier as part of the project delivery process
*information exchange: structured collection of information at one of a number of pre-defined stages of a project with defined format and fidelity
*master information delivery plan (MIDP): primary plan for when project information is to be prepared, by whom and using what protocols and procedures, incorporating all relevant task information delivery plans
*project implementation plan (PIP): statement relating to the suppliers’ IT and human resources capability to deliver the EIR
*project information model (PIM): information model developed during the design and construction phase of a project

= '''Keeping up to date''' =

Any published paper on the current development of BIM and particularly developments within the UK government strategy under the leadership of the BIM Task Group will inevitably quickly become out of date with the latest information published on the task group website [http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/ http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/] . Included among a wealth of useful information and resources on the site are reports from the case study projects under the title ‘Lessons Learned’ and these are regularly updated.

= '''Bringing it all together''' =

Harnessing IT and computing power in the name of the built environment will of course not stop here, indeed the developments will continue at a rapid rate but there is clearly a view that in terms of BIM and those issues that surround it, a watershed has been reached. The completeness, availability, accessibility and robustness of both authoritative guidance, much in the form of Standards, and commercially available tools such as, but not restricted to, BIM authoring software, is adequate to dispel objections from the industry to adopt more reliable ways of working, particularly when a strong client effectively mandates that way. This is effectively what the UK government announced in 2011 to take effect by 2016 and whilst the UK is not alone in its ambitions it is the most emphatic and certainly has made the most powerfully managed and supported statement of this kind. The general view is that because of this approach the UK has taken the international lead “in BIM” with UK originated Standards forming the basis of International Standards to be published by ISO (International Standards Organisation). This also marks the starting point for most papers about BIM.

They also very often seek a definition for what ‘BIM’ is, something that this paper has steered clear of, preferring to chart the rocky path to where we are now and leave the reader to contemplate the need for a definition. Thankfully it is generally now accepted that sales of software with BIM in or implied in its title is not a valid indication and neither is some kind of measure of 3D graphical representations, renderings or animations; much as they have their place. Almost all of the leaders in the field in the UK and many elsewhere have generally given up in trying to define BIM briefly and there is now a broad understanding that the shorthand use of the term describes something that it is about much more than software and 3D imagery. They see that it is primarily about dealing with information in all its forms accepting that much of this is exchanged as data that only needs to emerge from the various systems (inevitably utilising up to the minute IT) at operational points requiring human intervention. A number of single paragraph definitions do exist, and at the end of this paper, that offered in 2010 by CPIc is included as it is derived from a short study of a collection of other definitions and does not contradict the above understanding. However and as we have seen, in the UK various levels have been created and described in terms of evolving ‘maturity’ (fig 8) and the official ‘definition of the 2016 target “level 2” is set by a number of Standards and protocols listed previously. Einstein said that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In respect of a definition of ‘BIM’ this seems to be a wise statement. 

= '''Summary''' =

So what we have is:
*A realisation and acceptance that the way we are using the planet is not sustainable and that buildings and infrastructure must play their part in preserving valuable and exhaustible resources.
*A latent realisation that relatively new found powers of mass data collection, exchange and analysis can help determine where activity and measures might be best focused in order to most effectively address sustainability issues.
*An industry, and that is the extended industry including suppliers, manufacturers and those responsible for managing facilities, that has historically failed to perform optimally due primarily to its fragmentation and management issues and within those particularly issues of information management. Information is made up of data.
*A market that has accepted the poor performance of the industry as the norm and has exacerbated and promoted that poor performance through its procurement and financing processes.
*Products from the industry that are sometimes stunning in their contribution to the landscape and exemplary in terms of design and function but which, across the entire range, are habitually an opaque mystery to those that use operate and maintain them.
*A catalogue of proposals from authoritative bodies (many external to the industry) that are thematically similar enough as to not be competing, contradictory or confusing that thoroughly address many of the issues but which have been largely ignored by both the industry and the market as they question customs, norms and historic vested interests.
*A set of technologies – broadly labelled ‘BIM’ – that both demand the application of some of the previously ignored proposals to operate optimally and helpfully make it easier for that to occur.
*Driven by social use as much as scientific or business use, a blisteringly rapid movement towards a world of pervasive data. Indeed the speed and intensity of this is such that at times distinctions between social, scientific and business become blurred.
*In the UK particularly but with similar elsewhere also; a client body large enough to demand a phase-change in procurement parameters and committed enough to invest in formal guidance, systems and protocols to a published timetable.
*Encouragement that, led by early stages of this phase-change, the UK is reckoned to have taken the lead in meaningful BIM implementation [22].

= '''The future - “Level 3?”''' =

Relating back to the levels of the maturity diagram (fig 8), what about level 3?

A part of the success of the UK initiative is concentrating minds on the presently doable, and more importantly useful, in order to make progress in manageable step changes. Because of this it has been difficult to get any firm information on level 3 and what it will look like. However, on 26 February 2015 the launch of Digital Built Britain, the UK Level 3 Building Information Modelling program was announced by Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable. The press release said: “The work will build a digital economy for the construction industry in support of dramatically improving delivery, operations and services provided to citizens. The programme will build on the standards and savings delivered by the BIM level 2 initiative which has been central to the £840M savings achieved on central public spend in 2013/14.” A new website has been established at [http://digital-built-britain.com/ http://digital-built-britain.com/].

Many in the industry had filled-in the level 3 void using their own imaginations as to what it might be and some even claim to be already ‘doing it’. However, in the government task force and among experts close to it there has been a feeling that anyone saying that they are doing ‘level 3’ is misguided. The two primary arguments for this are:
*Requirements for level 3 have not been formally defined but we now know the proposed mechanism for doing this.
*Secondly, and more pragmatically the (standard) legal relationships and process protocols do not exist and this is high on the agenda for then new organisation.

Heretofore the closest to the thumbnail sketch on the maturity diagram (fig 8) of what level 3 might be like is probably examples where the entire process from land holding and developing through design and construction and including asset management rest within one singe company or family of companies in a kind of benign dictatorship. What this facilitates is a very prescriptive approach to the ownership and use of technology so technical aspects of coordination might be resolved but, by definition, it is not an open system. More importantly, however, it is not representative of potential varied business relationships that ‘level 3’ will eventually have to service. Hopefully without falling into the trap of inventing a definition ahead of the official word on it from Digital Built Britain ; ‘level 3’ will have to service any forms of business relationships and allow them to contract with each other in a way that will create, retain and preserve legal security for the individual parties whilst allowing (encouraging even) total cooperation and collaboration.

[[File:Fig 10 Digital Built Britain.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 10 The logo to look out for on ‘level 3’ (and beyond). (from Govt. BIM Task force web site)

Some early work on level 3 is looking beyond (level 4?) in order to set the scene for Big Data engagement. The BIM agenda has methodically considered the cycle of development transition from Capital Expenditure (CAP EX) to Operational Expenditure (OPEX) (Fig 9). Connecting the data that drives this process into the immediate environment and then beyond that brings forward the concept of Total Expenditure (TOT EX) which is inclusive of many other issues such as social, economic and sustainability at a community level as is included within BREEAM and in particular the BREEAM Communities scheme [23] which has been developed to find sustainable ways of addressing 21st century challenges like urbanisation and climate change. It covers economic, social and environmental sustainability – assessing issues like housing provision, transport networks, community facilities, and economic impact. It makes sure that sustainability is considered at the very early stages of design where site-wide solutions can have a big impact. BREEAM Communities and indeed the family of BREEAM schemes, can potentially be developed to be both provider and user of data in the quest for continual improvement through feedback, assimilation and application loops.

[[File:Fig 11 BREEAM Communities Coverage.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 11. BREEAM Communities coverage which can provide a ready basis for the concept of ‘Tot Ex’

= '''Conclusion''' =

This paper is based on historical and signposts current activity in the UK but does, where appropriate make reference to developments and parallells elsewhere. It starts with and acknowleges the realisation that we must do something about the depletion of our planet’s resources and finishes with a suggestion that by joining the appropriate data together we stand a better chance of doing that. In terms of the construction industry it moves from a quote from a leading architect made around 90 years ago through to a world where we are enveloped in data and undergoing an attitude change that proposes that as much data as possible should be freely available to enrich lives socially and in enterprise collaboratively. The role of the built environment and particularly the construction industry that produces it is the main focus of the paper, tracing that industry’s relative failings in communications, teamwork and adoption of technology. BIM is the current push and there are high expectations for its capacity to enable the changes necessary and the UK is taking this very seriously, so much so in fact that the eyes of the world are now turned towards it and by considered measures it is now generally considered to be leading with it being highly likely that Standards and guidance prepared for the UK market will become internationalised. It will be up to the industry to capitlaise on this situation.

This paper started with an iconic photograph from the 1960s so it might be fitting to end with the final passage from a poem that, albeit written some time before and was never quite so iconic, became popular with the new ‘environmentalists ‘ of that era.

From “The Beaks of Eagles” by Robinson Jeffers 1887 -1962

''It is good for man '' ''To try all changes, progress and corruption, powers, peace and anguish, ''

''not to go down the dinosaur's way '' ''Until all his capacities have been explored: ''

''and it is good for him '' ''To know that his needs and nature are no more changed in fact in ten thousand years than the beaks of eagles.''

= CPIc definition for BIM =

Building Information Modelling is digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility creating a shared knowledge resource for information about it forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle, from earliest conception to demolition.

From paper “Drawing is Dead – long live modelling” [http://www.cpic.org.uk/publications/drawing-is-dead/ http://www.cpic.org.uk/publications/drawing-is-dead/]

----

This article was created by --[[User%3ABRE%20Group|User:BRE_Group]]

From the author: I’d like to thank:
*BRE Trust for funding my time on preparing this
*Bill Manion of O’Neil and Manion Architects in the US. I had the pleasure of supervising his thesis work on the Interdisciplinary Design in the Built Environment (IDBE) course at Cambridge University and much of the forgoing was inspired by conversations during that and since.

 

= References =
*[1] "From the dawn of civilization to 2003, five exabytes (1018) of data were created. The same amount was created in the last two days." Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaking in the keynote presentation at the Guardian's Activate summit 2010, which addressed "society, humanity, technology and the Web"
*[2] Brundtland is probably the most widely accepted formal definition. The first part of this is: ''"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”''
*[3] Main hypothesis of A Report for the Government Construction Client Group – BIM working strategy Client Group 2011
*[4] Big Data is generally reckoned to be collections of data beyond current data handling capability and as such is constantly advancing. Gartner(US IT research and advisory organisation) defines it as: “Big data is high volume, high velocity, and/or high variety information assets that require new forms of processing to enable enhanced decision making, insight discovery and process optimization”
*[5][https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207772/Open_Data_Charter.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207772/Open_Data_Charter.pdf]
*[6] This term is the widely used to mean ‘confrontational and antagonistic’ implying something negative; and is used in this manner in this paper. However, technically the UK legal system is classified as ‘adversarial’ (in contrast to the inquisitorial system such as Napoleonic Law in much of Europe) so in the pure contextual definition of the word it does not confer anything negative.
*[7] A survey of 60,000 UK IT budget holders undertaken by the Journal ‘Computer Weekly’ stated: “Large construction firms spend an average of £10,285 per desktop each year on IT - more than 20% above the UK-wide business average of £8,455. This differential is even more marked in small and medium sized construction firms, where the average spend is £5,307 per desktop against an SME industry average of £3,132.”
*[8] CPIc is the Construction Project Information Committee, responsible for providing best practice guidance on the content, form and preparation of construction production information (CPI), and making sure this best practice is disseminated throughout the UK construction industry. It comprises representation from: RIBA, RICS, CC, ICE, CIAT, CIBSE, CIOB
*[9] Latham, M. (1994), ''Constructing the Team'', London: HMSO. ISBN 978-0-11-752994-6
*[10] Egan, J. (1998) ''Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force'', London: HMSO
*[11] Building Down Barriers: a guide to Construction Best Practice (2003) Clive Cain; Routledge ISBN 0415289635
*[12] Types of value are taken from ''The Value handbook'' (2006) published by CABE and written by Dr Sebastian Macmillan of Eclipse Research Consultants ISBN 1 84633 0122 2
*[13] Achieving Quality on Building Sites NEDO (1987) ISBN 0729208397. Also BRE current paper 7/81 Quality control on building Sites.
*[14] ''Project information'' is defined as the information from designers necessary to tell the constructors what to build.
*[15] Augmenting Human Intellect: A conceptual framework (1962). Stanford Research Institute for the (then) US Director of Information Sciences, Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
*[16] BuildingSMART, formerly the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI), is an international organisation which aims to improve the exchange of information between software applications used in the construction industry
*[17] Link to view video (current April 2015):- [http://constructioncode.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/end-of-babel-ifc-promotional-video.html http://constructioncode.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/end-of-babel-ifc-promotional-video.html]
*[18] Building SMART has developed Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as a neutral and open specification for Building Information Models
*[19] Government construction Strategy: (2011) Cabinet Office (link current April 2015 [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61152/Government-Construction-Strategy_0.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61152/Government-Construction-Strategy_0.pdf] )
*[20] Industrial strategy: government and industry in partnership. (2011) HM Government. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34710/12-1327-building-information-modelling.pdf Building Information Modelling]
*[21] A PAS is a Publicly Available Specification – a type of document issued by BSI to serve a number of purposes; here to get an advance version of a ‘standard’ into the marketplace for use and development ahead of its permissible publication as a BS. In this case the document contains non-normative information so has to be in circulation as a PAS for around 18 months prior to being reissued as a BS. There are a number of documents under the “1192” nomenclature and it is likely that that once all of these are available for full BS publication they may be slightly reordered into a homogeneous set.
*[22] [http://www.saxoncbe.com/a-darwinian-moment.html http://www.saxoncbe.com/a-darwinian-moment.html]
*[23] [http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/Introduction_to_BREEAM_Communities.pdf http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/Introduction_to_BREEAM_Communities.pdf]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Publications_/_reports]]

BIM - it's about the Planet - Part 1

2015-05-19T06:52:40Z

Keith Snook:

'''Author: Keith Snook (with funding from [http://www.bre.co.uk/bretrust/ BRE Trust])'''

This paper is based on historical activity and signposts current activity in the UK but does, where appropriate make reference to developments and parallells elsewhere. It starts with and acknowleges the realisation that we must do something about the depletion of our planet’s resources and finishes with a suggestion that by joining the appropriate data together we stand a better chance of doing that.

In terms of the construction industry it moves from a quote from a leading architect made around 90 years ago through to a world where we are enveloped in data and undergoing an attitude change that proposes that as much data as possible should be freely avaialbe to enrich lives socially and in enterpise collaboratively. The role of the built environment and particularly the construction industry that produces it is the main focus of the paper, tracing that industry’s relative failings in communications, teamwork and adoption of technology.

BIM is the current push and there are high expectations for its capacity to enable the changes necessary and the UK is taking this very seriously, so much so in fact that the eyes of the world are now turned towards it and by considered measures it is now generally considered to be leading with it being highly likely that Standards and guidance prepared for the UK market will become internationalised. It will be up to the industry to capitlaise on this situation.

= '''Introduction – setting the scene''' =

The majority of papers on BIM - Building Information Modelling - tend to jump straight-in from a contemporary construction industry focus and concentrate on the technology angle. We risk however losing the wider context, including forgetting for example that the construction industry exists primarily to provide a built environment to facilitate other activities. In its potential for contributing to whole life data, BIM can help remind us of this. The construction industry in the UK has been the subject of many major reports in the last 100 years and we can also forget that these for the most part have each been a reaction to dissatisfaction of either specific aspects or generally a perceived poor performance. In order to put the application of the technology involved in BIM into a context this paper reviews ways in which the industry operates to deliver its products, picking up on themes from some of the many reviews, and links this to both the development of the environmental agenda and the emergence of the era of ubiquitous data [1].

= '''The environment''' =

There is no definitive date for the start of mass awareness of the environmental agenda; for some it is the early 1960s with pioneering publications, such as ‘Silent Spring’ by Rachel Carson in 1962 and early research findings starting to demonstrate trends, for others with the creation of early ‘action funds’ such as the Environmental Defence Fund in 1967 where a steep decline in the numbers of Osprey (Sea Eagle) caused alarm. For the mass photo-news and television oriented world a photograph taken on 24 December 1968 by Bill Anders an astronaut on the Apollo 8 space mission, might well serve the purpose. 

[[File:Fig 1 Earthrise.jpg|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 1 “Earthrise” (Image available freely from NASA)

With the barren lunar landscape in its foreground it symbolised the frailty of blue planet Earth and stimulated debate, action and awareness making it politically impossible for governments to continue to side-step the concerns previously expressed by engaged scientists and minority pressure groups. The path to where we are now has not been straight forward and agreement, particularly on action, seems to be harder to achieve notwithstanding increasing scientific consensus on imminent, predictable and irreversible effects of our influence. Of course even without the space mission(s) and the photograph we may well have arrived at the same place in our collective thinking but it provides a useful and emotive icon for the “start” particularly for those of us who remember its first publication.

So what has the environmental movement to do with BIM? Concepts initially restricted to environmental conservation have long since been supplanted by more holistic understanding of sustainable development [2] with the term “environment” being expanded to cover all that surrounds us. More often than not the term “sustainability” is left to stand on its own as the descriptor of an ambition or target. To be more than just subjective ideals, aspects of this or any other definition have to be measurable and to do that requires data. For example a popular expression is to aspire to ‘zero carbon’. The science on how to measure let alone achieve this is complex, opaque and imprecise but at least it is a concept involving a quasi-numerical value to aim at.

In the UK, the government hypothesis about BIM is direct on this. It refers specifically to carbon performance, is inclusive of economic value and is simply stated:

''“Government as a client can derive significant improvements in cost, value and carbon performance through the use of open sharable asset information” [3] ''

BIM is seen as a way of facilitating this as asset information is derived from data and some of that data will increasingly come from BIM, more will come from related data sets such as AIM (Asset Information Models) and others so far not ascribed an acronym but which will go on to be a part of ‘Big Data’ [4].

= '''What is data? ''' =

As we shall see in the context of BIM and the implementation of the current UK government construction policies leading the way for the rest of the market, particular data can be quite specifically described and identified and indeed this is what most of the activity and effort has been about; but more generally what is it and how does BIM data fit into the wider ‘open data’ initiatives?

Data is a plural of datum which means fact. It is generally represented by digits and symbols and theoretically if kept to this simplicity it is universally interpretable. The term is also used to represent values in a qualified form such that increasing the level of qualification decreases the universality of interpretation. So in this common use of the term it enters a grey zone between its purest form and information; this grey zone becomes an important issue in compatibility of systems that operate with the data. Information is knowledge that makes sense and produces meaningful results from data.

= '''Ubiquitous data''' =

That UK government statement does not say ‘BIM’ directly and that is where the notion of ubiquitous data enters the argument: Data is now everywhere and we do not know (yet) how best to use most of it creatively. Ubiquitous data includes social, mobile, big data, analytics, cloud, software as a service, process, and more recently, the [http://successfulworkplace.com/2012/11/05/microsoft-missed-out-on-the-internet-of-things-are-you-ready/ Internet of Things]. In forty years we’ve moved from an analogue society of paper and fixed telephone to a place where we are rapidly representing, our entire world as a digital landscape. Indeed the Earthrise photograph, or at least how it got to be taken, can be emblematic of this aspect too. The equivalent to the rooms of computing power at the time of that mission can now be installed in one device along with equivalent in digital storage of the paper drawings and specifications that would have been produced to create the Saturn launch vehicle used in the mission. Even more contemporarily it could be held in ‘the cloud’ and rapidly accessed on a smart-phone. 

[[File:Fig 2 Digital infrastructures illustration of Facebook activity in 2010.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 2 Digital infrastructures – illustration of Facebook activity in 2010 (published as creative commons by Mark Zuckerberg; founder and CEO of Facebook)

Digital infrastructures have to support our ideas and interactions and be expansive so that through them we can make sense of everything physical, such as location, direction, acceleration, presence, contact, pressure, proximity, texture, temperature, gestures, odour, sound and nothing (absence of anything presently measurable). Sensors, applications, logs, and human interactions feed the process which in turn enables automation and human decision making. Analysis cycle times reduce and are more precise and so better inform decisions, help eliminate waste and error and enable enhanced interaction in a measured physical world. This is all with us now in popular applications that we have already begun to take for granted such as (often free) route planning and recording apps for our Smart Phones that relate personal data (age, weight, heart rate etc) to GPS data for example and produce information such a power output, calories burned and much more. Similar may not be overtly happening in construction but the fuel for this technology is data and BIM is data. Data about our built environment and whilst its present use, primarily in the service of construction design and process might hardly dent the above aspirations or comparisons, its adoption into full life cycles will make it become ever more significant and part of the ‘Big Data’ jigsaw puzzle.

= '''Open Data''' =

The word ‘open’ indicates a significant move encouraging openness for the greater good in contrast to existing norms that emphasise ownership and advantage. Clearly commercial advantage and intellectual right continues to be important and respected but the movement is about freeing up all that does not genuinely need such protection. In the UK the Cabinet Office published the Open Data Strategy in June 2012 and hot on its heels the Open Data Institute (ODI) was founded in by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Professor Nigel Shadbolt with £10m start-up funding (2012 – 2017) from the Technology Strategy Board. It is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, company limited by guarantee with the aim of catalysing the evolution of open data culture to create economic, environmental, and social value. It helps unlock supply, generates demand, creates and disseminates knowledge to address local and global issues through collaboration, incubation, nurturing and mentoring new ideas, and promoting innovation.

Internationally the G8 Nations Open Data Strategy and Charter [5] (2013) sets out a set of principles that will be the foundation for access to, and the release and re-use of, data made available by G8 governments. They are: 
*Open Data by Default 
*Quality and Quantity
*Useable by All 
*Releasing Data for Improved Governance
*Releasing Data for Innovation 

= '''IT in construction''' =

It is often said that the construction industry is behind other industries in its use of IT and at face value this is probably true though such statements are often supported by uncomfortable comparisons and lack of understanding of some of the issues. The complexity and transient nature of the relationships involved in the construction of the built environment is generally held as a reason (or excuse depending on viewpoint) for this backwardness. The industry has remained disjointed in its business structures and adversarial [6] in the legal frameworks that relate the parts to the whole. In this context it is unsurprising that the various fragmented parts of the total process have apparently been reluctant to invest [7] in IT solutions that themselves have been for the most part aimed at providing particular business-discrete or process-discrete applications.

For example even with BIM and its implication of collaboration the term “lonely BIM”, used to describe one discipline working in isolation with the technology, is not generally used as one might think in a pejorative way but used more to suggest that the protagonist is heroically doing the best they can under the circumstances. However logical there has been very little imperative or obvious reward for anyone to beneficially own the unification of the discrete parts. Where it is addressed the business model is typically to cover the costs from deflecting the process risks and the methodology has been invariably through exercising quite punitive contractual relationships rather than creative management processes. Similarly and confronted with such a marketplace there have been few incentives for the IT industry to present solutions or for any individual parts of the construction industry to commission holistic solutions. Any efforts, and there have been some, have largely been left to small bands of enthusiasts, sometimes ‘borrowing’ time from understanding and sympathetic employers and a few academics. The passion behind essentially pro-bono efforts and the preciousness of academia can sometimes prove as divisive as the commercial pressures that their efforts set out to question. 

Many official reports on the industry identified the structural weaknesses as contributory to habitual ingrained and almost anticipated poor performance. Evidence for this occurred in the application of first construction industry Key Performances Indicators (KPIs) in the early 2000s. There was some pressure to have certain performance measures, particularly related to design issues, which could score more than 10/10 in order to highlight those cases where, for example, good design has genuinely created something that significantly exceeds demands and expectations. The mathematical logic of this approach was not unreasonably questioned but reluctantly there was agreement to include instead some additional questions in the data collection of the kind “did the performance exceed expectations”. This missed the point being pursued but was enlightening in another way. What subsequently happened was that this box was quite frequently selected but accompanying very ‘middling’ numerical scores indicating that expectations of the industry are institutionally low. 

What should be a turning point, albeit that there are still threats from ingrained cultures and custom is the confluence of: 
*IT in the form of BIM (and systems that surround it),
*IT in the rapid growth and use of digital media particularly in a social setting which is informing more formal processes and facilitating blisteringly rapid change,
*Emerging patronage for new processes in construction that challenge the status quo.

These now occupy the same space and the timetabled ramped approach to the technology aspects (see Fig 4) also helps provide a platform to address the industry cultural and custom issues by the provision of authoritative guidance. 

= '''UK construction industry operation''' =

The Coordinated Project Information codes were issued in 1987 and included a promotional video the opening scene of which is an animation of soldiers at the battle-front in the Crimea (~1850s). They are sending a vitally important message via several messengers to battalion HQ: ''“Send reinforcements – we are going to advance”''. Through various stages of distortion and mishearing that message arrives at HQ as ''“Send three and four pence – we are going to a dance”''.

[[File:Fig 3 the early CPI and coordinated documents.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 3 the early CPI (large logo) and coordinated documents (small logo)

This simple, humorous, often quoted and no doubt apocryphal scene captures one of the most significant issues that construction has failed to convincingly address. As an industry it has risen to all kinds of technical challenges, produced the most spectacular feats of engineering and breathtaking architecture and design; but it has failed to get its communications working effectively. There have been many efforts to both identify the difficulties and address them with perfectly reasonable, logical and sometimes pragmatic guidance. 

= '''Industry reviews - Lutyens to Egan – a selection''' =
*Not technically a review but a good line-in-the-sand starting point; renowned and respected architect Edwin Lutyens (1869 – 1944) in a frustrated response to a richly artistic but information poor trend in architectural drawings of the time said ''“ a working drawing is a letter to builder telling precisely what to build not a picture to charm….”''
*''“''The Bossom Report” – formally titled:'' Reaching for the Skies ''1934 identified fragmentation, inefficiency and adversarialism as the critical problems
*“The Simon Report” – formally titled:'' The placing and management of contracts for building and civil engineering works ''1944 in addressing the plans for post war rebuilding clearly equated lowest tender methods with lower standards and identified insufficient pre contract preparation and problems of indefinite and inequitable sub contracts.
*“The Banwell Report” – (also) formally titled: ''The placing and management of contracts for building and civil engineering works ''1964 recommended what we would now refer to as more collaborative processes using less adversarial relationships.
*“The Tavistock Report” - formally titled: ''Interdependence and Uncertainty: A study of the building industry,'' 1966 noted the crippling effect of fragmentation (and actually rather summed it all up in its imaginative title).
*“The PIG Report” - formally titled: ''Project Information - its content and arrangement A report and proposals on the way forward'' 1978 By the Project Information Group (PIG) of the Department of the Environment NCC Standing Committee on Computing & Data Co-ordination. This also called on research such as that reported in ''BRE Current Paper 18/73 “Working drawings in use” ''and ''BRE Current Paper 60/76 “Coordinating working drawings'' and went on to recommend (and fund) the creation of the CPI documents mentioned above and to set up the interdisciplinary body that maintains their contemporary versions and other publications and services to this day - CPIc[8] (fig 3) 
*Latham 1994 [9] and Egan 1998 [10] again recognised the issues and, among other observations, both authors effectively said to the industry “why have you not adopted these (CPI) protocols?”. On neither occasion did the industry provide a reasoned response to the question. 

These are a selection of the better known reports and, in the light of what has transpired, one might only say ‘influential’ with some qualification.

= '''“Avanti” and “Building Down Barriers”''' =

In a programme funded by the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI 2002) the CPI protocols were used in a mandated way on a series of projects. Otherwise they were all ‘ordinary’ building projects with a spread of technologies across what we would now call level 0 and 1 with a hint of level 2 on some as defined in fig 4 – the Bew - Richards BIM maturity graph. The projects were all fairly conventional, and used normal professional appointments, contractual arrangements, insurances, penalties etc. The programme was called ''Avanti – ICT enabled collaborative working'', and the only difference compared to other projects of the time was that they were each facilitated by individual mentors who knew the ins and outs of the relevant protocols including some that were in draft at that time such as documentation that was to evolve into BS1192 – 2007. 

[[File:Fig 4 BIM Maturity copyright obtained Bew Richards.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 4 BIM Maturity Graph in an early published form – Copyright obtained Bew Richards

Avanti reported in 2007 and on average showed savings in line with those expected in the current BIM programme of around 20 – 25%. Individual savings recorded for particular activities were even more startling: 
*Early commitment offering up to 80% saving on implementation cost on medium size project
*50-85% saving on effort spent receiving information and formatting for reuse
*60-80% saving on effort spent finding information and documents
*75-80% saving in effort to achieve design co-ordination
*50% saving on time spent to assess tenders and award sub-contracts
*50% saving on effort in sub-contractor design approval

A further initiative with a promising title "Buidling down Barriers" [11] analysed the reasons for ‘initiative failures’ of the past and ironically also predicted its own failure in an early passage where it stated:

''“The reason why the numerous reports between 1929 and 1994 have failed to have any impact on the performance of the construction industry is because the industry continues to be blind to its failings. It is also unwilling to measure its performance, particularly the impact of fragmentation and adversarial attitudes.”'' 

''Building Down Barriers'' also had good patronage from the UK military as a very experienced client for a substantial built portfolio but even with its backing through demonstration projects and rather like Avanti, ''Building Down Barriers'' was seen by the rest of the industry primarily as a research experiment – exciting, fulfilling and a glimpse of a possible future for those involved but with the majority of them subsequently moving on to new projects procured and operated in a conventional way. Exposure to these projects slightly swelled the ranks of those individuals convinced by the methods and committed to improvements but they were still very much in the minority and mostly then with very little influence in the face of the complacency identified in that passage from the report. However with the emergence of the current government stimulated “BIM agenda” a gratifying number of those involved in or having knowledge of both ''Avanti'' and ''Building down Barriers'' and other research have emerged and, several years on, are operating in positions of influence. 

= '''Value and Quality''' =

 

'''Value = What you get''' / '''What you give''' 

albeit that he notes that subjective and personal assessments for measuring the quantities of “what you get” and “what you give” must be used. Clearly, a result greater than unity is a positive (good) value outcome and less than unity is negative (bad). 

Value can be broken down to various types as identified by Dr Sebastian Macmillan in ''The value handbook'' [12]''. Exchange value'' is easy to quantify monetarily for example (it is often referred to as ‘book value’ and will appear on asset registers) and there are systems such as BREEAM that address ''environmental value'' in quantifiable terms. ''Image value'' can generally be assessed in context by those to whom it is important and for some endeavours ''use value'' might conform to a fairly precise algorithm, eg factory efficiency, but ''social value'' and ''cultural value'' may be difficult to reduce to simple monetary terms. 

Quality is technically fairly easy to define (there is a British Standard / ISO definition) and measure but the difficulty comes more from misuse as the term is often used loosely for example to describe gratuitous opulence rather than effectiveness or fitness for purpose or even beauty. Government funded research at BRE contemporary with that for the CPI codes focused on a long term objective and observational study of the achievement of quality on UK construction sites and produced interesting results that did not support common perception. The emphasis on objective research is important in this. Research based on typical survey or structured interview techniques as would be more likely now would have probably produced different results for the same reasons as the failure to adopt better working practices noted in the ''Building Down Barriers''. The construction industry has not embraced attempts at self-contemplation or measurement and has taken precious little notice of any applied to it by third parties, including BRE even when it was a government funded research laboratory. Therefore the industry self-perception, which is what inquisitorial rather than observational techniques tend to expose, is likely to provide a biased picture. The BRE research [13] contradicted commonly cited industry rhetoric which often displayed almost feudal attitudes in placing responsibility for failures with trades people or other operatives as a default. The research, which was not distracted by industry opinions or prejudices, showed that management and professional failures to do with information are responsible for far more compromises of the quality of the product than those directly caused by site works or operatives. On the issue of skill for example it found that there was abundant skill in those properly trained for the job albeit at times there were simply not enough skilled people to match workloads. By far the single largest culprit for failures of quality however was ''missing or inadequate project information ''[14]''.'' Which again directs us to consider BIM and particularly the UK government led initiative which emanates from the Government Construction Strategy. 

= '''The technology''' =

What we now know as BIM may not go quite as far back as the Lutyens quote but certainly goes back to the 1960s – the era of “Banwell” and “Tavistock”. Put very simplistically, and perhaps even patronisingly, the development of computing has in part been a story of a universal solution with huge potential looking for problems to address. Applications in manufacturing are familiar and there were enlightened thinkers from both computing and construction who had realised that the built environment would also be a very likely place. Indeed not just the “built environment” but environment more generally as developments in mapping (Geographic Information Systems – GIS) have run in parallel with those for construction. The first mass impact of computing was to business generally where computers were enthusiastically introduced to automate tedious tasks. This put computers inside organisations and increased their familiarity. It was also the start of the idea of integrated business systems with forward thinkers envisaging a situation where data would only emerge for uses that require human intervention and not for it to re-emerge for such things as transfer between operations if no human intervention was necessary. This is an ideal we are still pursuing, its original conception having been severely hampered by the development of competing proprietary systems for the most part addressing solitary purposes and functions and parts of complex processes rather than the whole. This would also become an issue with CAD and BIM systems.

For construction, creating detailed technical drawings (as distinct from design drawings) was identified as one of those “tedious tasks” and application of computing to this became CAD in the form Computer Aided Drafting. The same acronym is used for Computer Aided Design with many confusingly using the two synonymously. As early as 1962 Douglas C. Englebart makes suggestions of the shift from just Drafting to Design in his paper ''Augmenting Human Intellect'' [15]. Perhaps being an engineer rather than an architect himself his cited ‘architectural design’ example, focuses on technical rather than aesthetic design aspects.

''“The architect next begins to enter a series of specifications and data – a six-inch slab floor, twelve-inch concrete walls eight feet high within the excavation, and so on. When he has finished, the revised scene appears on the screen. A structure is taking shape. He examines it, adjusts it. These lists grow into an ever more-detailed, interlinked structure, which represents the maturing thought behind the actual design.”'' 

It does however introduce concepts of what we now know as parametric object based design involving a relational database; or (now) BIM for short. 

In construction and with the move from research into viable commercial systems during the 1970s and 80s much of the development activity became directed towards further reducing the tedium and cost of drafting and, for the more forward thinking, creating parametrically accurate objects linked to other relevant data. Virtually all development however had the objective of producing reliable drawings, and schedules, to fit into the normal contractual, legal and business processes of construction whether in the UK, US or Europe (or elsewhere – Finland for example has always been at the forefront of the subject). With much of it having been based in research and at that time there being little imperative for considering open or interoperable systems, improvements continued in the computing aspects and software advanced (within the scope of also rapidly improving hardware) but the end game was still servicing the industry business norms and to a limited extent advancements in visualisations and graphical rendering. Whilst the earlier list of reports and the sometimes bleak messages within them about these norms is confined to the UK, most other regions had broadly similar issues with interdisciplinary relationships and there was little reference to using information technology to address these issues. Perhaps there should have been more in that the sponsoring body for the 1978 UK “PIG” report was the “Project Information Group (PIG) of the Department of the Environment NCC Standing Committee on Computing & Data Co-ordination”, but the report focused on the observed problems, with frequent references to BRE research, and bizarrely bearing in mind the scope implied in its title, did not mention computer applications. 

Another aspect, particularly in respect of commercial development in the early years was the human/computer interface and there was a period when the software and processing power/potential was running well ahead of this aspect as in the laboratory interface issues are generally not such an imperative. A watershed occurred between 1980 and 1985 in the commercial application of interface systems, led by the mouse, that we are familiar with now. 

In the mid to late 1980s there was a discernible split in development effort. The first was towards efficiencies in the construction process which is where the first references to time being the 4th dimension in what was to become BIM were made. The other was continued development of design aspects and simulations. 

= '''Becoming virtual''' =

In 1982 in Budapest, Hungary, work started on what is generally reckoned to be the first BIM software. Current versions of this software are in use today, they are favoured by Mac users and used mainly on small to medium sized construction projects to which it is particularly well suited. Inspired to make something to cater for more complex projects the same group developed software which following purchase by a much larger software company in 2000 is now one of the most ubiquitous Architectural BIM authoring tools with versions for other disciplines also in the portfolio. 

Prior to this acquisition, which changed the company’s commercial landscape by adding a highly functional proprietary tool to their portfolio, the company had teamed up with the International Alliance for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability Interoperability] (IAI – later to become BuildingSmart [16]), to produce a particularly altruistic film called “The End of Babel” [17]. The film promotes open systems and particularly the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) [18] that AIA had just started to develop. It uses the famous story of the building of Babel as an analogy with the lack of system interoperability and, albeit an American production, was presented by a UK television household name of the day on technology, James Burke. From his script: 

''"The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel Tower of Babel], one of the biggest construction projects undertaken. Designed to reach the heavens. But the engineers couldn't finish the job. Halfway through everybody working on the job was stricken with inability to understand what the other fellow was saying. They were all still talking......but they weren't communicating. That incident was supposed to have taken place in around 5,000 BC. And we've been trying to understand each other ever since''." 

That vision in the film remains an objective of the current BIM initiative in the UK and probably also elsewhere as whist it focuses on the technology and the ambition for IFCs, the underlying story is about total collaboration and cooperation in order to achieve the goal.

Another approach to design collaboration is software which is solely designed to coordinate across varying file formats and include other features such as data collection, construction simulation and clash detection.

Simulation programs, many aimed at environmental issues, have been developed that work with imported models and recently BIM authoring tools have provided inbuilt simulation capability also. More recently still the increase in hand held devices has been recognised and the niche of rapid conceptualisation using such devices is being addressed by software providers including those from outside the established construction software providers and including the power houses behind global data searching.

The last significant player (for now) in the technology support is collaboration software. The message is finally being accepted at the leading edge that the multitudes of designers, consultants, project managers, construction contractors and sub-contractors brought together in a temporary organisation for the term of a project need to be able to communicate in a controlled and reliable manner with much of that communication being at data level. Only then can they start to operate effectively and efficiently as a team. The leading providers of collaboration software have also recognised the basic project stages such as design and contract preparation, construction and contract completion and operate and maintain; and are engaged in making their tools applicable throughout it. Indeed in the UK the government is funding a master ‘digital Plan of Work’ in order that all sectors can adopt a common structure. The gulf between the information involved in the construction and operation of a facility has been identified for some time and much effort is now becoming concentrated on that.

= '''Creative tension''' =

Related to the introduction of the technology there is a tension within the education of creative designers such as architects. The argument suggests that creativity could suffer in the face of expediency and this is probably best explained by using a simple example. BIM platforms typically represent walls, for example, as objects with layers and these layers are defined in terms of the depth and height and are then extruded along the length of a line. The program then has the ability to calculate dimensional properties such as the volume of material contained within the wall assembly and to create wall sections and details easily. However by definition this type of workflow is based on the existing buildings, common industry standards and conventional technology and solutions and therefore a project which is produced in BIM authoring software which emphasises these methods is likely to reinforce existing paradigms rather than contribute to developing new ones that advance the art and science. This is, or certainly the fear of it is, further exacerbated by the proliferation of BIM Libraries which, rather like standard details in line-drawn form from previous generations, are viewed with some suspicion. 

These perceived limitations of parametric flexibility and geometry sculpting has led to the development of systems supporting non uniform rational basic splines (NURBS). These platforms have provided the power to iterate and transform for complex and provocative architectural forms and are favoured by those wishing to explore forms involving organic shapes and for projects such as those related to infrastructure where, for example, natural landform shapes inform or become a part of the design. NURBS is now increasingly incorporated into more generally available in software.

[[File:Fig 5 NURBS.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 5. NURBS surface defined by control points over a two-dimensional parameter field. (Creative commons: Wikimedia.org)

= '''BIM and the UK Government Construction Strategy [19]''' =

Whilst private sector client bodies, design consultants, construction contractors and others have variously seen advantages of BIM and implemented aspects of BIM on projects it is the Government Construction Strategy (2011) that is the authoritative origin for the government led initiative that is now the primary focus for the application of BIM in the UK. The key sentence within the strategy for this is: 

''“2.32 Government will require fully collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data being electronic) as a minimum by 2016''.” 

This and the detail surrounding it, not least a fully detailed “BIM strategy” [20], has taken much of the attention and an important feature is the inclusion of a premise that the government as a client for construction needs to improve and indeed become exemplary. For government this uniquely means committing to and publishing a rolling programme of procurement intentions. This is an important aspiration for an industry that is reluctant to make significant capital investment, is one of the most sensitive to economic cycles and is wary of an historic trend of being used as a fiscal regulator by successive governments. More generally and an aspect that has more potential to be replicated in the private sector is creating defined data expectations at predetermined points within individual projects (fig 6) 

[[File:Fig 6 Information exchanges and client delivery points.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 6 Information exchanges and client delivery points set against generic work stages (from Govt. BIM Task force web site) 

The provision of explicit individual project data provides for a greater accuracy in evaluating that work in terms of quality, time and cost. It is presumed, and at present can only be hoped, that this client facing subtlety of the whole initiative is not lost when translated for private procurement when the distinctions between capital and operational budgets or even simply short and longer term benefits generally are in apparent commercial conflict brought about by silo thinking. Government has also identified a number of projects on which to test the emerging procedures being developed to accommodate both new working practices and apply methods including BIM software. Fig 7 shows an example of a chart from one of these early projects illustrating the high level data requirements set against the project work stages (running along the top). The information or data sets that respond to the data requirements will then generate definite client actions and decisions that allow the project to progress without the lack of certainty typical in much construction procurement. 

[[File:Fig 7 Project information strategy and data requirements.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 7 Project information strategy and data requirements. (from Govt. BIM Task force web site) 

Describing the current incarnation of BIM in the UK invariably and logically starts with the “Bew/Richards maturity graph”. This has been used to guide and map the production of critical industry documentation on the subject as a part of a “roadmap” to the standards and other document development to support the implementation of BIM (fig 8). In 2014 the definitive items of such guidance for ‘level 2’ were determined. Each of these documents has further references to others necessary to complete the story. 

They are: 
*PAS,1192-2 Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling [21] 
*PAS 1192-3, [http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Details/52072 Specification for information management for the operational phase of construction projects using building information modelling] 
*BS 1192-4, UK Implementation of COBie 
*CIC BIM protocol, 
*Government Soft Landings, 
*Classification - to be completed in 2015 
*Digital Plan of Works - to be completed in 2015 

[[File:Fig 8 The BIM Maturity Graph.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 8 The BIM Maturity Graph – a part of the UK roadmap for BIM. (The Roadmap from Govt. BIM Task force web site is a live document updated from time to time to reflect progress and necessary changes) 

With the clarification of this list it is possible to more positively define what ‘level 2’ BIM is and to create focused education and training to establish and test core competencies. Courses both in formative education and particularly in re-educating practitioners through CPD and other training is now taking shape. 

The most significant of the documents listed is PAS1192–2 which in large part is focused on the Information delivery cycle at fig 9. The information delivery cycle is explained in detail below and selected definitions from the Standard are also included to aid its understanding. It shows the cycle laid-out against a process plan. This plan will eventually be set out, when work is complete (mid 2015), to be the digital Plan of Work. 

An important point, probably the most important point about the development of the UK BIM maturity levels is that whilst the line between level 2 and level 3 can be, and is, described in technical terms and in terms of the information handling processes and protocols it is primarily determined by the ability to operate within normal contractual, legal and other broadly familiar arrangements up to the line. What this means is that no wholesale rewriting of construction contracts is necessary although it does encourage a change of approach and certain modification as provided for in the CIC BIM Protocol which also introduces a new task of information management which is covered in a referred document called the Outline Scope of Services for the Role of Information Management. The Protocol is a contractual document that when introduced takes precedence over existing agreements (so a fairly significant amendment to standard forms) and places an obligation on parties to provide distinct elements of their services at predetermined stages in a project. The application of the Protocol is covered in guidance also prepared by the CIC. This guidance also covers aspects of professional indemnity insurance - often cited as a stumbling block for collaborative methods. 

[[File:Fig 9 The information delivery cycle at the heart of BIM.png|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 9 The information delivery cycle that is at the heart of PAS 1192-2. (Copyright obtained from Mervyn Richards)

----

'''Notes for fig 9''' 

The information delivery cycle has two points of entry. For new build projects, at the “Need” box (top right in the fig), for projects that are part of a larger portfolio or estate, or for work on existing buildings and structures, it is at the right-hand arrow “Assessment” which draws on the information in the Asset Information Model (AIM). Here PAS1192-2, which deals with the Capital expenditure phase, references PAS1192-3, which deals with the Operational expenditure phase. These points of entry are also referenced in the Common Data Environment – CDE (central zone in the fig). The information delivery cycle (blue arrows) shows the generic process of identifying a project need, procuring and awarding a contract, mobilizing a supplier and generating production information and asset information relevant to the need. This cycle is followed for every aspect of a project, including the refinement of design information through the seven project stages shown (green). Work is on-going defining these as an accepted industry standard but well known systems such as the RIBA Plan of Work (2013) can be used.

The pale green wedge represents the CDE that collects information through the lifecycle for management, dissemination, exchange and retrieval processes.

Red circles indicate information exchanges between the project team and the employer in answer to the Plain Language questions defined in the employer’s information requirements (EIR). Information exchanges between project team members are indicated by small green circles. '''Selected definitions from PAS1192-2asset information model (AIM) ''' maintained information model used to manage, maintain and operate the asset.
*common data environment (CDE): single source of information for any given project, used to collect, manage and disseminate all relevant approved project documents for multi-disciplinary teams in a managed process
*employer’s information requirements (EIR): pre-tender document setting out the information to be delivered, and the standards and processes to be adopted by the supplier as part of the project delivery process
*information exchange: structured collection of information at one of a number of pre-defined stages of a project with defined format and fidelity
*master information delivery plan (MIDP): primary plan for when project information is to be prepared, by whom and using what protocols and procedures, incorporating all relevant task information delivery plans
*project implementation plan (PIP): statement relating to the suppliers’ IT and human resources capability to deliver the EIR
*project information model (PIM): information model developed during the design and construction phase of a project

= '''Keeping up to date''' =

Any published paper on the current development of BIM and particularly developments within the UK government strategy under the leadership of the BIM Task Group will inevitably quickly become out of date with the latest information published on the task group website [http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/ http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/] . Included among a wealth of useful information and resources on the site are reports from the case study projects under the title ‘Lessons Learned’ and these are regularly updated.

= '''Bringing it all together''' =

Harnessing IT and computing power in the name of the built environment will of course not stop here, indeed the developments will continue at a rapid rate but there is clearly a view that in terms of BIM and those issues that surround it, a watershed has been reached. The completeness, availability, accessibility and robustness of both authoritative guidance, much in the form of Standards, and commercially available tools such as, but not restricted to, BIM authoring software, is adequate to dispel objections from the industry to adopt more reliable ways of working, particularly when a strong client effectively mandates that way. This is effectively what the UK government announced in 2011 to take effect by 2016 and whilst the UK is not alone in its ambitions it is the most emphatic and certainly has made the most powerfully managed and supported statement of this kind. The general view is that because of this approach the UK has taken the international lead “in BIM” with UK originated Standards forming the basis of International Standards to be published by ISO (International Standards Organisation). This also marks the starting point for most papers about BIM.

They also very often seek a definition for what ‘BIM’ is, something that this paper has steered clear of, preferring to chart the rocky path to where we are now and leave the reader to contemplate the need for a definition. Thankfully it is generally now accepted that sales of software with BIM in or implied in its title is not a valid indication and neither is some kind of measure of 3D graphical representations, renderings or animations; much as they have their place. Almost all of the leaders in the field in the UK and many elsewhere have generally given up in trying to define BIM briefly and there is now a broad understanding that the shorthand use of the term describes something that it is about much more than software and 3D imagery. They see that it is primarily about dealing with information in all its forms accepting that much of this is exchanged as data that only needs to emerge from the various systems (inevitably utilising up to the minute IT) at operational points requiring human intervention. A number of single paragraph definitions do exist, and at the end of this paper, that offered in 2010 by CPIc is included as it is derived from a short study of a collection of other definitions and does not contradict the above understanding. However and as we have seen, in the UK various levels have been created and described in terms of evolving ‘maturity’ (fig 8) and the official ‘definition of the 2016 target “level 2” is set by a number of Standards and protocols listed previously. Einstein said that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In respect of a definition of ‘BIM’ this seems to be a wise statement. 

= '''Summary''' =

So what we have is:
*A realisation and acceptance that the way we are using the planet is not sustainable and that buildings and infrastructure must play their part in preserving valuable and exhaustible resources.
*A latent realisation that relatively new found powers of mass data collection, exchange and analysis can help determine where activity and measures might be best focused in order to most effectively address sustainability issues.
*An industry, and that is the extended industry including suppliers, manufacturers and those responsible for managing facilities, that has historically failed to perform optimally due primarily to its fragmentation and management issues and within those particularly issues of information management. Information is made up of data.
*A market that has accepted the poor performance of the industry as the norm and has exacerbated and promoted that poor performance through its procurement and financing processes.
*Products from the industry that are sometimes stunning in their contribution to the landscape and exemplary in terms of design and function but which, across the entire range, are habitually an opaque mystery to those that use operate and maintain them.
*A catalogue of proposals from authoritative bodies (many external to the industry) that are thematically similar enough as to not be competing, contradictory or confusing that thoroughly address many of the issues but which have been largely ignored by both the industry and the market as they question customs, norms and historic vested interests.
*A set of technologies – broadly labelled ‘BIM’ – that both demand the application of some of the previously ignored proposals to operate optimally and helpfully make it easier for that to occur.
*Driven by social use as much as scientific or business use, a blisteringly rapid movement towards a world of pervasive data. Indeed the speed and intensity of this is such that at times distinctions between social, scientific and business become blurred.
*In the UK particularly but with similar elsewhere also; a client body large enough to demand a phase-change in procurement parameters and committed enough to invest in formal guidance, systems and protocols to a published timetable.
*Encouragement that, led by early stages of this phase-change, the UK is reckoned to have taken the lead in meaningful BIM implementation [22].

= '''The future - “Level 3?”''' =

Relating back to the levels of the maturity diagram (fig 8), what about level 3?

A part of the success of the UK initiative is concentrating minds on the presently doable, and more importantly useful, in order to make progress in manageable step changes. Because of this it has been difficult to get any firm information on level 3 and what it will look like. However, on 26 February 2015 the launch of Digital Built Britain, the UK Level 3 Building Information Modelling program was announced by Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable. The press release said: “The work will build a digital economy for the construction industry in support of dramatically improving delivery, operations and services provided to citizens. The programme will build on the standards and savings delivered by the BIM level 2 initiative which has been central to the £840M savings achieved on central public spend in 2013/14.” A new website has been established at [http://digital-built-britain.com/ http://digital-built-britain.com/].

Many in the industry had filled-in the level 3 void using their own imaginations as to what it might be and some even claim to be already ‘doing it’. However, in the government task force and among experts close to it there has been a feeling that anyone saying that they are doing ‘level 3’ is misguided. The two primary arguments for this are:
*Requirements for level 3 have not been formally defined but we now know the proposed mechanism for doing this.
*Secondly, and more pragmatically the (standard) legal relationships and process protocols do not exist and this is high on the agenda for then new organisation.

Heretofore the closest to the thumbnail sketch on the maturity diagram (fig 8) of what level 3 might be like is probably examples where the entire process from land holding and developing through design and construction and including asset management rest within one singe company or family of companies in a kind of benign dictatorship. What this facilitates is a very prescriptive approach to the ownership and use of technology so technical aspects of coordination might be resolved but, by definition, it is not an open system. More importantly, however, it is not representative of potential varied business relationships that ‘level 3’ will eventually have to service. Hopefully without falling into the trap of inventing a definition ahead of the official word on it from Digital Built Britain ; ‘level 3’ will have to service any forms of business relationships and allow them to contract with each other in a way that will create, retain and preserve legal security for the individual parties whilst allowing (encouraging even) total cooperation and collaboration.

[[File:Fig 10 Digital Built Britain.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 10 The logo to look out for on ‘level 3’ (and beyond). (from Govt. BIM Task force web site)

Some early work on level 3 is looking beyond (level 4?) in order to set the scene for Big Data engagement. The BIM agenda has methodically considered the cycle of development transition from Capital Expenditure (CAP EX) to Operational Expenditure (OPEX) (Fig 9). Connecting the data that drives this process into the immediate environment and then beyond that brings forward the concept of Total Expenditure (TOT EX) which is inclusive of many other issues such as social, economic and sustainability at a community level as is included within BREEAM and in particular the BREEAM Communities scheme [23] which has been developed to find sustainable ways of addressing 21st century challenges like urbanisation and climate change. It covers economic, social and environmental sustainability – assessing issues like housing provision, transport networks, community facilities, and economic impact. It makes sure that sustainability is considered at the very early stages of design where site-wide solutions can have a big impact. BREEAM Communities and indeed the family of BREEAM schemes, can potentially be developed to be both provider and user of data in the quest for continual improvement through feedback, assimilation and application loops.

[[File:Fig 11 BREEAM Communities Coverage.gif|RTENOTITLE]]

Fig 11. BREEAM Communities coverage which can provide a ready basis for the concept of ‘Tot Ex’

= '''Conclusion''' =

This paper is based on historical and signposts current activity in the UK but does, where appropriate make reference to developments and parallells elsewhere. It starts with and acknowleges the realisation that we must do something about the depletion of our planet’s resources and finishes with a suggestion that by joining the appropriate data together we stand a better chance of doing that. In terms of the construction industry it moves from a quote from a leading architect made around 90 years ago through to a world where we are enveloped in data and undergoing an attitude change that proposes that as much data as possible should be freely available to enrich lives socially and in enterprise collaboratively. The role of the built environment and particularly the construction industry that produces it is the main focus of the paper, tracing that industry’s relative failings in communications, teamwork and adoption of technology. BIM is the current push and there are high expectations for its capacity to enable the changes necessary and the UK is taking this very seriously, so much so in fact that the eyes of the world are now turned towards it and by considered measures it is now generally considered to be leading with it being highly likely that Standards and guidance prepared for the UK market will become internationalised. It will be up to the industry to capitlaise on this situation.

This paper started with an iconic photograph from the 1960s so it might be fitting to end with the final passage from a poem that, albeit written some time before and was never quite so iconic, became popular with the new ‘environmentalists ‘ of that era.

From “The Beaks of Eagles” by Robinson Jeffers 1887 -1962

''It is good for man '' ''To try all changes, progress and corruption, powers, peace and anguish, ''

''not to go down the dinosaur's way '' ''Until all his capacities have been explored: ''

''and it is good for him '' ''To know that his needs and nature are no more changed in fact in ten thousand years than the beaks of eagles.''

= CPIc definition for BIM =

Building Information Modelling is digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility creating a shared knowledge resource for information about it forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle, from earliest conception to demolition.

From paper “Drawing is Dead – long live modelling” [http://www.cpic.org.uk/publications/drawing-is-dead/ http://www.cpic.org.uk/publications/drawing-is-dead/]

----

This article was created by --[[User%3ABRE%20Group|User:BRE_Group]]

From the author: I’d like to thank:
*BRE Trust for funding my time on preparing this
*Bill Manion of O’Neil and Manion Architects in the US. I had the pleasure of supervising his thesis work on the Interdisciplinary Design in the Built Environment (IDBE) course at Cambridge University and much of the forgoing was inspired by conversations during that and since.

 

= References =
*[1] "From the dawn of civilization to 2003, five exabytes (1018) of data were created. The same amount was created in the last two days." Google CEO Eric Schmidt speaking in the keynote presentation at the Guardian's Activate summit 2010, which addressed "society, humanity, technology and the Web"
*[2] Brundtland is probably the most widely accepted formal definition. The first part of this is: ''"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”''
*[3] Main hypothesis of A Report for the Government Construction Client Group – BIM working strategy Client Group 2011
*[4] Big Data is generally reckoned to be collections of data beyond current data handling capability and as such is constantly advancing. Gartner(US IT research and advisory organisation) defines it as: “Big data is high volume, high velocity, and/or high variety information assets that require new forms of processing to enable enhanced decision making, insight discovery and process optimization”
*[5][https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207772/Open_Data_Charter.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207772/Open_Data_Charter.pdf]
*[6] This term is the widely used to mean ‘confrontational and antagonistic’ implying something negative; and is used in this manner in this paper. However, technically the UK legal system is classified as ‘adversarial’ (in contrast to the inquisitorial system such as Napoleonic Law in much of Europe) so in the pure contextual definition of the word it does not confer anything negative.
*[7] A survey of 60,000 UK IT budget holders undertaken by the Journal ‘Computer Weekly’ stated: “Large construction firms spend an average of £10,285 per desktop each year on IT - more than 20% above the UK-wide business average of £8,455. This differential is even more marked in small and medium sized construction firms, where the average spend is £5,307 per desktop against an SME industry average of £3,132.”
*[8] CPIc is the Construction Project Information Committee, responsible for providing best practice guidance on the content, form and preparation of construction production information (CPI), and making sure this best practice is disseminated throughout the UK construction industry. It comprises representation from: RIBA, RICS, CC, ICE, CIAT, CIBSE, CIOB
*[9] Latham, M. (1994), ''Constructing the Team'', London: HMSO. ISBN 978-0-11-752994-6
*[10] Egan, J. (1998) ''Rethinking Construction: Report of the Construction Task Force'', London: HMSO
*[11] Building Down Barriers: a guide to Construction Best Practice (2003) Clive Cain; Routledge ISBN 0415289635
*[12] Types of value are taken from ''The Value handbook'' (2006) published by CABE and written by Dr Sebastian Macmillan of Eclipse Research Consultants ISBN 1 84633 0122 2
*[13] Achieving Quality on Building Sites NEDO (1987) ISBN 0729208397. Also BRE current paper 7/81 Quality control on building Sites.
*[14] ''Project information'' is defined as the information from designers necessary to tell the constructors what to build.
*[15] Augmenting Human Intellect: A conceptual framework (1962). Stanford Research Institute for the (then) US Director of Information Sciences, Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
*[16] BuildingSMART, formerly the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI), is an international organisation which aims to improve the exchange of information between software applications used in the construction industry
*[17] Link to view video (current April 2015):- [http://constructioncode.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/end-of-babel-ifc-promotional-video.html http://constructioncode.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/end-of-babel-ifc-promotional-video.html]
*[18] Building SMART has developed Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) as a neutral and open specification for Building Information Models
*[19] Government construction Strategy: (2011) Cabinet Office (link current April 2015 [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61152/Government-Construction-Strategy_0.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61152/Government-Construction-Strategy_0.pdf] )
*[20] Industrial strategy: government and industry in partnership. (2011) HM Government. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34710/12-1327-building-information-modelling.pdf Building Information Modelling]
*[21] A PAS is a Publicly Available Specification – a type of document issued by BSI to serve a number of purposes; here to get an advance version of a ‘standard’ into the marketplace for use and development ahead of its permissible publication as a BS. In this case the document contains non-normative information so has to be in circulation as a PAS for around 18 months prior to being reissued as a BS. There are a number of documents under the “1192” nomenclature and it is likely that that once all of these are available for full BS publication they may be slightly reordered into a homogeneous set.
*[22] [http://www.saxoncbe.com/a-darwinian-moment.html http://www.saxoncbe.com/a-darwinian-moment.html]
*[23] [http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/Introduction_to_BREEAM_Communities.pdf http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/Introduction_to_BREEAM_Communities.pdf]

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Publications_/_reports]]