BIM: From Theory to Practice

The Governments 2016 deadline for Building Information Modelling compliance is rapidly approaching. Building Products staged a Round Table of experts, which echoed BIM itself, being a multi-disciplinary collaboration between manufacturer, architect, contractor, consultant and client. The meeting saw discussion of the real world needs of the industry, and showed that many issues remain to be resolved. We discovered that while the substantial investments are worthwhile, gaining full benefit from BIM will mean full engagement, from suppliers to FM teams easier said than done.

The Building Products Round Table

Casey D Rutland Associate director, Arup Associates

Casey is an architect who has significant experience of working with BIM tools on a wide range of projects, and combines this with a realistic business approach.

Peter Trebilcock Director of BIM, Balfour Beatty

A qualified architect, Peters responsible for implementing BIM across Balfour Beatty Construction Services. He was vice president (Membership) of the RIBA from 2001-2003.

Steve Cookson Technical services manager, liquid applied membranes, Sika

Steve has worked in the roofing industry for 18 years, in roles ranging from CAD technician to his current position. He represents technical company policy at all meetings.

Liam Brady Town Hall complex client programme manager, Manchester City Council
As part of his key role on the 100m refurbishment, Liams in charge of exploring how BIM data can benefit the city.

Frank Werling Head of technical, engineering and design, Mets Wood

Frank has a wealth of sector knowledge from many years of specialisation. A structural engineer, he leads the firms technical team, and led the way in its BIM development.

Simon Rawlinson Head of strategic research and insight, EC Harris

As well as his role at EC Harris, Simon is a member of the core group of the Governments BIM Task Group, and is working on alignment of COBie and commercial data.

Paul Evans Head of marketing, Celotex

Paul is responsible for the insulation manufacturers innovation and new product programmes, as well as all marketing communication campaigns.

Paul Woddy Author and consultant, White Frog Publishing

A former application specialist at Revit, Paul is now an independent BIM consultant and trainer, and advises major international design and construction companies.

David Gillies Product marketing manager, automatics, Dorma

David is the senior specification sales person at the door controls specialist manufacturer, and is also the firms BIM Champion, as it develops its strategy.

John Wilson Technical manager, Lakesmere

Johns the lead on BIM within Lakesmere, developing design standards and procedures, delivering models to the client, and analysing BIM tenders.

ChairED BY James Parker editor, Building Products

SPONSORS

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

Introduction
James Parker, editor, Building Products, and chair of the BIM Round Table
The Round Table was held in the auspicious surroundings of the headquarters of our oldest army regiment, the Honourable Artillery Company, just off Londons City Road. The contrast between this grand old Georgian house, hidden away next to the silicon roundabout home to many new web-based companies couldnt be more striking. That contrast between old and new echoes the challenges being faced around BIM by many firms in the construction industry, who have for decades found ways of designing and operating buildings, or their components, which work for them. However those time-honoured ways are now facing a daunting challenge from the Government, as it demands everyone involved in delivering its projects to be fully conversant with 3D (Level 2) BIM, by 2016. However, for the smaller or more sceptical companies out there, is the investment really worth it in the current climate, or is it that they cant afford not to be in the game? The opportunity was outlined by Paul Morrell, then Governments Construction Advisor, in 2011, when he stated that public sector construction is worth around 35-40bn, but that the quid pro quo was that the industry had to achieve a 20% saving in procurement.

BIM might well be the panacea for achieving these efficiencies, but there appears to be a growing gap between the cognoscenti and the stragglers. In the 2013 National BIM Survey, only half of those already using BIM have reached the Governments Level 2 requirement, and 22% of those surveyed who werent yet in the club said that they didnt want to be. What do suppliers need to do in order to fulfil their contract with clients and contractors, what are the new KPIs? And are we really ready to share everything? The Round Table looked at BIM in practice, including lessons from real schemes, and found that not only issues remain around data delivery from manufacturers, but theres a critical need to engage the FM side. The potential improvements in product specification, and efficiency generally, are enormous, but it seems we are a still a long way from achieving them all. The meeting was a key step towards that goal.

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

turned off, because they dont need the data that relates to manufacturing; what theyre looking for is data that relates to their maintainable asset. Chair: Are you having conversations with suppliers about what the savings are likely to be to them? PT: We are having conversations, rather than about specific savings, in terms of workloads. For instance we are seeing suppliers supplying us with relevant BIM information that can dovetail into the other models, whether its a doorset, ceiling or services. It means the project is better integrated, better coordinated. We see inherently therell be less rework, less defects, less visits to site, and efficiency savings. They will be different depending on the size and scope of the project, for our suppliers, but we see that inherently its a more efficient way of working, that will more than pay for the investment. We see the figures you quoted earlier [30K investment to become BIM compliant] being exceeded by some way. Chair: John, whats your attitude at Lakesmere to return on BIM investment now is it a case of you cant not be involved? John Wilson: There are many different pieces of software out there, so we have to be quite versatile and flexible to be able to use them. Theres a good collaboration of zones and things like that we can work within. That reduces requests for information, for example, going out to the client. Weve been using 3D models to get collaboration going with clients and also our suppliers, for the last six or seven years. We see BIM as just an extension of that, its a matter very simply of just putting together an O&M (operation and maintenance) manual. The problem that we tend to have is understanding the level of detail required by the clients. That is a concern. Instead of drawing a profile do you want a box, do you draw every screw? Were also finding that there isnt a BIM document coming through, or generally after a projects awarded a client will say they want BIM. We are quite happy to be flexible, there are things we can do to pull it into the software. Generally when we are tendering for a project, that information is not really there. So over the past 12 months weve developed our own BIM standard. Chair: Steve, at Sika do you believe theres a dangerous lack of clarity on data requirements? Steve Cookson: Theres not been much clarification on what the market needs when it comes to level of detail. Do you want screws and outlets, or is it just the simple components and their properties? If theres not some clarity soon on this, there is a danger around the 2016 deadline. We are one of the first manufacturers to be on the National BIM Library, and there arent many listed in the coming soon section of the website. From speaking to other people, there is a lack of direction, its screaming out for the supply chain to get involved, but the lack of clarity of whats demanded of us there doesnt seem to be any documentation saying whats needed from manufacturers. Chair: Liam, as a client, do you see that clarity currently coming from the client side? Liam Brady: I think theres a complete lack of direction at the moment. Clients need to show more leadership, and some of the big FM companies need to join the game. Im seeing very little proper engagement with the use of BIM for FM. Theres nothing in the employer requirements about BIM, but weve good historical partnership arrangements with our partners. Its been a difficult journey to articulate what our requirements are, because a lot of it has been done on the hoof. It is for clients to show leadership but I do think the FM world do need to engage more in this. We are surrounded by people who are brilliant with the technology, but its about the culture, getting the FM service providers on board. Getting them to interact with the designers, and saying look, you can influence the design, is a massive task. At first, they didnt believe it. Paul Woddy: Is that something thats changed with BIM, is it not a culture thats always been there? LB: If you look at Latham and Egan in the 1990s, they were great words, especially about framework partnering, and there have been some good results. But I think we are very silo-based in our way of working, and the recession is really biting. We have a fantastic partner in Laing ORourke, but they are cutting their cloth. In terms of handovers we are trying to embrace the Governments Soft Landings approach, and thats a bit of a rocky road to be honest. We are really working hard as a team, and Ive got no criticism of the individuals at Laing ORourke, but I think they are just spread a little too thin, which is maybe just a reflection of the market. The FM are one foot out of it. They shouldnt be, they should be closer. PW: To assume that the FM guys are going to be involved from the beginning is wrong. If each object contains FM information at concept design stage, then the model becomes completely unworkable. Chair: There are a lot of challenges to integrating everything at the front end arent there? LB: There are massive benefits, but people shouldnt underestimate the difficulty. Weve been around and seen loads of different contractors very forward thinking ones, but if the clients not on board, theyre passing the baton to nobody. Simon Rawlinson: Regarding the competitive advantage to manufacturers, if you look at the early adopter projects, one of the direct savings a client can achieve is to take out the cost of manually updating a whole lot of information into FM systems. But in a sense having FM suppliers opting into that is turkeys voting for Christmas, because

Chair: Part of the Governments Construction 2025 Strategy is to build manufacturers competitive advantage using BIM, however what is that competitive advantage currently is its cost-effectiveness for firms in the supply chain established, so they can justify the investment? Peter, youre asking your suppliers to be fully conversant with BIM by 2014, where do you see their return on investment? Peter Trebilcock: Weve been working with our supply chain for the past 18 months, sharing our vision for where wed like to go, and offering to work very closely with them to understand the technology, the mechanics. Government has made its vision clear, that they are looking at projects to be compliant with a certain set of COBie data. So were gearing up, preparing for that, and our suppliers have a role to play, in satisfying the clients data needs. For us, the basic properties and attributes of materials is probably all that we need. One of the benefits of BIM and also one of the dilemmas is that its a fantastic digital toolset. I think thats what a number of companies might be wrestling with. You can provide the basic attributes of materials, you can also provide the manufacturing data, built in. Question is, if that manufacturing data was included, simply because it could be, in all projects, for every component, youll have a pretty unwieldy memory-hungry model to deal with, and not all clients want that level of detail. So its wrestling with the various needs of the people around this table, versus the clients who are

If manufacturing data was included, simply because it could be, for every component, youll have a pretty unwieldy memoryhungry model to deal with
Peter Trebilcock, Balfour Beatty

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

this is a big upfront revenue generator for people to set up contracts by plugging in data. BIM is saying in this instance, were going to take that away from you. You could say thats not in the FM industrys interests. On the other side, we probably havent been able to articulate what the contractors role in creating that FM asset is, and you can see a few contractors responding to that, and extending themselves into creating that asset. Manufacturers who provide data that can enable contractors to cost-effectively create those FM assets are going to be in a better position to secure those contracts than those who arent. So we seem to be opening up a new area of differentiation and based on evidence from recent work weve done for BIS and supply chain, most contractual relationships with suppliers at the moment are very cost driven. So something which says there are people who cant engage with this because they dont have the data, they dont have it in the formats we need, that means these people are no longer in play, at least for a period. That is a quite powerful source of potential advantage. Its being articulated well by the industry and the opportunitys obvious. Regarding levels of detail required, Steve has identified a really big challenge. The Government BIM Task Group which I sit on has started to do some very early prototyping on that; if you visit the Labs section of the Task Group website, there are Demand Matrices which are organised on a detailed structure within a piece of work called The Digital Plan of Work. Its starting to map out the levels of detail and how the information might be used. But this is two people doing some very early work to get the industry engaged. We have received no feedback from manufacturers at all. Here is Government-funded work, quite well publicised, its there for comment, as a starter for 10, and the industry needs to engage, even to say we dont understand this at all. Thats a challenge for us around communication, and this event is a good opportunity. The thinking is being developed, but at the moment its fairly techy. Casey D Rutland: The Digital Plan of Work is setting a framework for how manufacturers objects from manufacturers should work in terms of applying data and geometry to product libraries. I think its important that what we are trying to do is to remain comparable and competitive. Theres a lot of work going on with the Construction Industry Council in creating the Specifiers Product Information (SPie) templates so you can easily compare one boiler, data-wise, to another. Thats a massive task; therell be different parameters for data for all product types. Some of those data fields are contained within the COBie spreadsheet format anyway. Its got to happen and itll happen slowly, and theres no easy way to tell every manufacturer how to create these. Chair: Is there a need for fairly user-friendly but detailed guidelines? SR: If youd asked Christiaan Barnard when he was trying to work out how to do a heart transplant, can you come up with some user-friendly guidelines, hed probably say can we work out how were going to do it first? Its still quite complicated,

One of the direct savings a client can achieve is to take out the cost of manually updating a whole lot of information into FM systems
Simon Rawlinson, EC Harris

although there are some relatively simple analogies we use. But actually then trying to articulate levels of detail, what you need at different stages, you need a whole load of people of people to engage in that conversation. Its the whole industry coming together and starting to say what they need. My analogy of how BIMs going to operate is a massive white board weve got some bits populated with post-its, people saying this is how were going to do this bit, weve a got a reasonable idea of how one or two projects might be delivered. But people will be doing it differently on different projects. Its great that people are saying we need this common standard, now the question is how does a collection of industries gather together to write that? PW: I agree, and there is a lot of naivety in terms of what that specification is going to look like from the road map of that level of detail. I think a lot a lot of people assume that more is better, and thats just not the case. And what I see a lot is manufacturers trying to drive down to screws and nuts and bolts, and more info, and the designers constantly trying to pull back away from that level of detail. There are certain bits of information which are relevant at concept but which are irrelevant as you move through the process. So the curve we see in terms of what information is relevant at each data drop is not a smooth line. Once a fancy 3D model thats accurate with all screws and colours with all data attached arrives at FM, the amount of information has tailed off considerably. Chair: Casey, is that tailing off happening within real schemes? CDR: No, its not. It does work both ways, there is a lot of data we use at concept stage that is irrelevant at FM point. But equally there is some performance data that we need there, that is lost throughout the process, which the FM guys could benefit from they might be replacing a door within a wall that is two hour fire rated as a whole, but the door doesnt need to be, because its in a different zone. Chair: Youre quite a fan of having a larger amount of data than not, arent you? CDR: More information is good, if you know how to use it. If youre simply bloating things with data as soon as you can, its not going to help anyone. Im in two minds if its an issue whether models get too big or not we build stadia and multi-storey towers, and with the way technologys moving I wouldnt get too fussed about how large the models are becoming. Linked databases are separate, the point is it

needs to be linked in to the model the model needs to be geometry, and really, how much detail do we need in the geometry? It just needs to be a place holder. It needs to look nice for architectural images, for us to convey ideas to clients and win a job maybe. Inherently if we use a manufacturers objects in order to build a scene and sell an idea, theres already too much information in there datawise for the contractors to use. We dont necessarily want the FM data then, and if its in there, well just ignore it you havent really dealt with it at that point. Chair: There isnt really guidance on this aspect though is there? CDR: There is and there isnt. Reading through PAS 1192, it says this is what we need at this stage, Im a huge advocate of using the American Institute of Architects E202 document that says this is the information that can be relied upon at this stage. Ive used that as a layer beneath PAS 1192 and the BIM protocols, because it goes more granular. For example, it says because its a tube station, we would prefer at Stage 2 to have loads more information on the substructure, because the door knobs really dont matter right now, or the walls above ground; the cost is in the foundations of the building. If you flip that on its head, and say youre building a data centre, you need loads of information at Stage 2 about the MEP. Its project-specific, we need to be able to work through it project by project and say heres a template, what does the client need to make decisions at each stage? LB: Theres too much obsession with capital cost in the specification and not enough focus on whole-life cost. Whats it going to give to the client for 25 years? We need to look at the big picture, and involve FMs. Im convinced that we should be using more BIM tools to select product, considering whole life costs.

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

PW: But is there not the inherent danger that information that is contained in a model too early has a risk associated with assumed design? LB: Its context. CDR: Thats where the E202 [American Institute of Architects guidance] comes in. LB: You might be identifying whats not acceptable. PW: Yes, but if youve chosen a door handle at an early stage because it looks nice rather than its performance factors, all of which are included, then is somebody else going to look at that model and assume that that door handles been chosen because of its performance? SR: Im absolutely with you on that one, and I dont know how the products industry responds to this, because thinking on procurement is moving towards organisations like Balfour Beatty being asked to deal with outputs of performance, over a life. The Governments Soft Landings approach is moving towards greater assessment of performance in use. Somebody assuming that a product is whats been specified because somebody pulled an object out of a library on the web, and then the delivery teams dont behave as they should, ie to optimise that component, thats a big risk. Chair: The tail wagging the dog? SR: Yes, the one we could find suddenly becomes the spec. We have seen examples of quite detailed design in some BIM-driven procurements which have probably limited contractors opportunities to improve performance. Somebody specifies one component then it has a knock-on effect. Unless you are absolutely explicit that this is a performance-specified object, that its exactly what we want, how can you communicate it clearly? CDR: In some cases you cant do that in the EU, because you have to remain competitive to the point where youve procured it. SR: You should remain competitive in all instances; in very few instances should people be saying I want exactly that object. Light fittings, door handles, thats probably about it. JW: Weve seen models coming in from architects that just have the spec code on it, so you just have the spec document, which may be performancerelated. CDR: Id advocate that place-holder geometry. PT: Can I ask, in the groups experience, how many clients are asking for anything other than a traditional O&M manual? JW: Weve got one client that wants both a straightforward O&M and a BIM model. CDR: Out of the projects I am running, four. Paul Woddy: A lot of clients are waiting to see what comes, theyre not contractually requiring, because they dont know. LB: I think thats pretty sad, that some clients are waiting for things to happen, weve got to show some leadership. One of the things weve found from some [software] vendors, they tell you what you cant achieve, more than what you can. It did feel a bit like the tail wagging the dog, and we thought wed just put our cards on the table. Within our short term vision we are extracting information from the model and we are making it work with our estate management package. We are running pilots to make sure its actually happening. We had a session with vendors where we got Mark Bew and Jamie Johnston of the BIM Task Group to come up we said we didnt want to have it with the vendors without them being in the room, and John Lorimer (ex Manchester City Council, now at Cabinet Office) came too. It was quite powerful really, because we presented our vision [to Concerto, Artra and E-docs], and told them all to go and do their homework. We didnt know what to expect from them, whether they would work together, and they would. Then we presented our long-term vision. Its working for us, the way weve done it short-term, and our FM team think its great. It is working for us. Its about driving the market really, which is why more clients and FM providers need to come to the table.

Theres not been much clarification on what the market needs when it comes to level of detail
Steve Cookson, Sika Liquid Plastics
Chair: The cynical term for it might be the Not Invented Here Syndrome? PT: You could say that. Its why should I learn a new language? CDR: Its more a case of learning how to speak English properly. Its not a completely new language, its learning how to do it better. PT: I think there ought to be a BIM-Lite option, which makes it easier. CDM: Thats exactly what were doing with two of our clients, Broadgate Estates and Jaguar Land Rover. They both said how do we get our information from your models to our FM systems, and we showed them a few lines of COBie data, and they picked the ones they wanted. So its data they will use, they dont have to sift through hundreds of lines. PT: If more clients understood they can have a BIM-Lite, thered be a Eureka moment. CDR: Its not Level 2 compliant, but it makes their business work! Paul Evans: I think that view is important from a manufacturers perspective as well as these huge amounts of data sets that we will be asked to populate to get our products BIM ready, if we knew what the essentials were, you could have a BIM-Lite. The fear factor exists in the product manufacturing world its being left to individual manufacturers to try and drive competitive advantage through being one of the first to embrace it. JW: Weve had a job recently where weve had the information from a client, just the steelwork and the architects model, and the model has got so unwieldy, even the clients software cant handle it. So theyve had to split the building up, and this is before weve put any of our information into that model.

COBie, and other detailed issues

SR: The point was made earlier about when a client asks for COBie COBie should sit in the background, its a data structure, a means of one platform talking to another. Were on that journey where a client is saying they want the information from the construction project in their FM system how the industry goes about that is to some degree up to the industry. You wouldnt want to bet your entire future on a large Excel spreadsheet. Youd expect a client to ask for the information in a standard way, but I would be surprised if they asked for COBie. This goes back to who drives improvement in the industry is it the client or the industry itself? Its useful to learn how other supply chains managed to coalesce around standard ways of working. PT: What do the Government want at the end of the project? Do they want models, do they want

BIM-Lite as an answer to client concerns?

PT: We have got a number of jobs using BIM, and its our default position. Weve internally listed about 60 benefits half to us, half to the client. But its a pity that half of our clients arent interested in it. They dont see themselves changing their operating model to conform to BIM and say why cant it simply plug into their operating model? The other reason given is we want a traditional O&M manual the BIM data comes in a language thats too complex, I dont want to go there, or I dont want to have to buy expensive software to access this data. These are the perceptions. They are thinking they will have to change their whole portfolio to comply, and havent got the budget for the training necessary.

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

is more around a formal set of data exchange standards. PW: The last thing we want is each of these FM software providers each to go off and develop their own communication standards of extracting data from the model. PT: Is there a danger that we are trying to get the industry to become experts in COBie, rather than somebody devising a simple system that meets clients needs? PW: Yes. SR: What we encouraging, through the Technology Alliance for example, is to get software providers to coalesce around providing extract/query tools that enable you take that information out from the environment you are accustomed to working in. If you dont have that standard to develop against, nothing happens, and thats the danger. All manufacturers in this room would be absolutely right to not do anything until a standard emerged. Theres one get behind it, improve it, thats where the engagement needs to be. Chair: David, does COBie fit your needs as a manufacturer? David Gillies: We are in the very early stages, weve only just released our BIM objects. Theres a big reliance at our stage on someone like BIM Store in understanding COBie requirements and what we should put in as data. Frank Werling: Most problems on site occur when the services are put in, plumbers or electricians doing something. We have BIM objects packed with data, Im not sure whether its too much or too little we developed software that works with our supply chain. SC: It seems they are almost wanting two levels of detail (RIBA in our case), when the spec is first written, and at design stage. The question I have is what purpose does the model serve in the end, and who is it serving? PW: You use the word end, and thats sometimes the confusion the fit-for-purpose nature of the model has no end; it has fitness for purpose today. As the model then progresses, some of the information still has relevance (geometry and metadata), other bits less so. Later it may come back that we need more geometry again, as we start to look at the fixings and whether things fit. Chair: Steve, you seem to be saying that theres still nowhere near the amount of guidance to enable you to go into the process with clarity? SC: I attended today to learn from others, and I will look at the Digital Plan of Work that Simons mentioned. But BIMs in its early stages, we are all learning. ings dont have a BIM model. So the FM providers are doing FM for millions of square metres without BIM. He said therell only be a shift as BIM starts to listen to the FM world its about essential data and not data drops. He said they need key quantities, the grade, size, typical performance and warranty data, and then cleaning regimes. LB: The big thing that a lot of FM people are absolutely anal about is space, and BIM can help with that. Im taking on board what Simon said about COBie, but we are getting information from suppliers that we dont need, they are going the extra mile. Its very difficult for us to dictate, but Im listening to whats been said about future compatibility, and Im thinking maybe we need to take the information and adjust it slightly to COBie format. About retrospective BIM, we are refurbishing iconic buildings in the city, so theres a real sense of worth. What were trying to do is draw in some of our commercial and finance people, get them close to BIM. Were working on doing a lot of case studies, with Cabinet Office guys, capital but also operational ones, which will probably go up on the Task Group website. The City Treasurer is seeing the benefits; BIM helps us make informed decisions. SR: 2016 is about large-scale refurb, a 50K patch up over the summer, probably not. But this is a volume opportunity for the industry, and in many ways, knowing the geometry of the fabric, getting some automation in achieving performance in insulation, would work quite well. Some work done in France by Saint-Gobain is effectively coming up with an automated design application to help them implement their fabric performance initiatives. One of the opportunities that someone like Sika might see is do we actually need to have an architect to work out the best way of putting in an

drawings, specification, or COBie? SR: They want data, in COBie format, for purposes such as FM. PT: Theres the perception amongst a lot of clients that its COBie or nothing, for satisfying FM requirements. LB: A lot of clients including ourselves are embracing COBie but we struggle with the logic of it at times, because it delves into the minutiae. I dont know if its a tad academic, but Ive got the utmost respect for the individuals in the team who have done it. I think the format needs to be tailored to client needs were struggling to find people we can share ideas with. The information must be user-friendly these people are running buildings, they dont want to have to go and learn a new trade. I dont think its unreasonable to say the information must be compatible with existing systems. Our city has made a substantial investment. SR: We might have a misapprehension here. COBies nothing more than a means to an end. Chair: So its being misunderstood in the industry? SR: Yes. A worst outcome is that you have 25 versions of HTML, in the analogy of designing a website. I think the really strong message around this table is saying you can have a lot of different versions of COBie is against the interests of all manufacturers, because you want to coalesce around one standard. COBie might not be the right standard, but its going in the right direction, so debate around whether its fit for purpose, not lets go off and do lots of different ones. CDR: Its the structure of the document. If you can keep it as is and just use that as a common format and export it as a CSV file, that can be read by multiple different packages. Whether you complete those columns, is a different matter, but thats my version of COBie-Lite. SR: At this stage its the best standard thats available to help people start to coalesce around a common way of working. The PAS standard

Refurbishment, and other FM challenges

SC: What are peoples opinions of how BIM is being used in the refurbishment market? BIM is heavily geared towards new build in my opinion, but whats the Governments plan for refurbishment? PT: I asked a colleague who advises property owners, what do you think product manufacturers ought to be prioritising? On refurbishment, he said over the past 12 months hed surveyed 30 m2 of built assets, and only a handful had mentioned BIM. Why? Because the majority of existing build-

If youve chosen a door handle at an early stage because it looks nice, is somebody else going to look at the model and assume that its been chosen because of its performance?
Paul Woddy, White Frog Publishing

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

upstand detail in an existing building, when we have the survey and can automate it. No-one wants to procure one-off solutions any more. CDR: We originally did Broadgate Circus and are now refurbing it, using Revit as a standard production tool, amongst others. It would have taken us months to survey it traditionally, but we had it laser scanned internally and externally, and we now have that point cloud to use natively within the Revit file. Ive always been a big advocate of using that data as long as you can without turning it into objects until you absolutely need to.

Resolving software and data issues

SC: We do 2D standard and bespoke details, but is that the level of detail thats needed at refurbishment, because new build is geared around NBS, which is a very generic outline document in my opinion. We do go down to a much greater level of detail on existing buildings. Is it just a case of providing those details in 3D? PW: The assumption is often that BIM is a predefined library. But theres no reason why it cant be delivered in a bespoke way it doesnt have to sit there and be static. PW: Can I ask suppliers which division in your company paid for the production of that? SC: Technical services. [Other suppliers]: Its normally marketing. PW: Thats kind of where I was going that in many respects changes the way a manufacturer looks at the fundamental problem of BIM. Whether they are changing their systems to use its advantages to the maximum, or the other extreme being ticking a box. There are plenty of places in between.

PT: We are interested not only in the product, but in the service. We want to know how you are going to get it in, how you are going to get the waste out. What do you need to provide? A whole host of possibilities, for different purposes. Because there are the assessment tools, energy tools, flow rates that you can build in as a designer, but theres also the data from manufacturers. I can tell you what Im looking for, but there might be another 10 things the designer or client is looking for. Thats the excitement but also the complexity that comes with BIM. Its almost more to do with learning about data management than what BIM is, its how we manage that data that you provide, or what your installers need to know. FW: Its almost as if everything in the model needs a tag, containing the information, and whoever gets that in the model, it filters what they need. SR: I think thats spot on, it goes back to talking about models being more or less populated at different times in the scheme. Casey might need a whole lot of stuff around U-values, but what is the purpose and what is the information requirement can we articulate that better and to some extent thats what the data drops are. There are a whole lot of supply chain data drops around coordination, clash detection, health and safety, logistics, which the client shouldnt have to articulate. So when you look at some of the processes in the PAS standard, the diagrams enable you to some extent anticipate what clients might be asking for. Chair: Is that ad hoc or is there a national standard yet for data drops, to get it off clients backs? SR: If we were comparing what HS2 need to know compared to Ministry of Justice, you can say the Governments term Plain Language Questions is a generic term for heres a question that needs an answer to get us through a gateway. Different clients have different decision points, so you cant have a standard that says this will happen at this point, different procurement processes will have different supply chains engaged at different times. We could have Sika involved right up front, so they might be providing information really early on. I think we have to be realistic and pragmatic around how the industry operates. Its thinking about currency of data, how data can help us do things better. CDR: A lot of the discussion has been about COBie, and no one mentioned IFC [the Industry Foundation Classes data model]. COBie is a small part of IFC, and I think if anyones looking at investing in the future of their product libraries, to BIM level 2 or level 3, they really need to get a grip on how IFC works, and how the data moves from one platform to another. We need to end up in a position where the data is hosted somewhere that everyone can get to it and people access information via an archive environment. All computing power is done where that model is saved, so model size doesnt become an issue; it becomes industry-standard information. Yes, Autodesk do have 60% of the market, but it needs to be slightly more open than that. Arup uses a whole range of different BIM-authoring

One of the things weve found from some vendors, they tell you what you cant achieve, more than what you can
Liam Brady, Manchester City Council

tools, and it throws up challenges. The industry as a whole, through the technology, needs to figure out what the common language is so that we can all work together. Chair: Revit is pretty much the standard platform, is that right? CDR: Its Arups primary production tool but not everything can be created within that. PW: I need to say Im a former Revit employee, but it is the only tool that can successfully allow an architect, a structural engineer and an MEP services engineer to communicate 100% on a project. Until we see the holy grail of IFC allowing us to perfectly communicate between different software packages, at the moment Revit is the only one that covers all the disciplines. PT: To minimise our risk and issues with interoperability, it is our preference that everybody works on the same platform. We cant always dictate that of course, but it makes life so much easier. Chair: BIM can mean several different platforms working together concurrently, is that right? PW: It isnt necessarily one single software source. We shouldnt start to argue that everyone in the industry should have to learn Revit in order to be involved in BIM. It is about having something which means that you can plug information in and extract information, its not about the technology. Chair: What are the current issues with compatibility on projects? PT: Loss of data. PW: Loss of design intent. For instance, on steelwork weve got varying standards, but unless you know the intricacies of how those different software applications will handle the interchange between packages, it can have a major impact on the design intent of the model. CDR: There are always backups, were still providing two-dimensional drawings to say this is actually what we think it should be.

Three-dimensional views of models

PT: (Directed to Chair): Your comments right at the beginning, that one of the drivers is efficiency savings of 20%, those savings wont be realised while there are still interoperability issues. DG: Are the software providers working towards a solution in that case? PT: I dont think theyre working hard enough; there isnt the perfect scenario right now, so youll find youll lose data or somebodys unable to play a full part in the BIM process. Youre limiting your efficiency, having to redraw, rework, redesign. SR: But even if one thinks that some of the biggest gains in terms of hitting those initial savings are around co-ordination and clash detection, you can

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

JW: On one project weve been asked to do the O&Ms for both including an as-built BIM model, so if it changes on-site, the model is adjusted to suit. SR: The CIC protocol which would be added to a designers appointment or to a contractors contract, creates the BIM models as deliverables and they needed to be complete to the level of detail required. PW: The as required is the grey area, isnt it? SR: But in the same way that working outside of BIM its a grey area. From that situation where you would have the model straying from what the GAs are showing, youre now seeing the model starting to become the primary deliverable. CDR: I would not want a section of the floor slab junction being different to the model. If it was the likes of 50, 25 mm Id go and change it, Id have my model set up so that it reflected that change on one floor, or on 50 floors. PW: The problem in receiving that model is, do you make the assumption that you have that moral regard for your deliverable or not. CDR: Thats when you learn who to work with and who not to work with! LB: Weve got great examples on our project where things have been modelled, like service rafts on a typical floorplate, modelled in detail. With the 2D versions its not quite what youd like. PW: The issue is that there is inherently a large portion of the design that never goes past the schematic. And in that respect it becomes an aesthetic to produce a tap, because were not actually going to model the connections that tie that to the services, were talking purely in terms of how pretty it looks and thats the reason why were putting that into the model, rather than knowing exactly how much pipe well need. Does BIM go to that extent where we do model everything, does that then mean that the process of adopting BIM becomes a hindrance to the saving, to the efficiency of that design? Do we take it too far? SR: Everything needs a tag, you tag every socket outlet, Casey D Rutland, every tap, every valve, every Arup Associates shutter point: those need to be in the BIM but maybe you dont need the things joining them together. PW: We know that light switch is attached to that light, we dont need a physical cable to do so. Chair: What are the product manufacturers experiences in this area? FW: The biggest interface we have is with M&E. Plumbing, changes due to Building Regulations, large holes going through the floor etc. Its all possible but it has to be designed at the right point, so if you know it in advance, you could work out exactly how much cable you would need, and say as a builder to an electrician, if its any longer then youre wasting my money and youre wasting materials. SR: A report was produced by CIC and BIS earlier in the year which looked at the residential sector, and said that it needed to be industrialised to get the volume thats needed, but we all know why the industry keeps not doing that and keeps producing fairly simple products. In many ways thats what the Digital Plan of Work is moving towards. PW: Casey, as an architect what do you think about, effectively, financial people designing buildings? CDR: Well, QS dont have curved rulers do they! It happens to some extent already, but it shouldnt hinder the design process. If youre getting cost advice, it needs to be weighed up in terms of benefits for the project against what the client would like as a building. SR: What I described there had nothing to do with cost, it was to do with how you actually build things out of components, how do you start to bring things down to their essence in many ways thats what good design is. PW: I was playing devils advocate then for a reason, because one of the other problems weve got as an industry is that if you even discuss that sort of approach, certainly in the academic circles of architecture, then you get an awful lot of pushback. In one university which I wont name, theyve got 56 lecturers teaching BIM and Revit, through all sorts of professional disciplines. The one department that doesnt want anything to do with BIM is architecture, because to them, it interferes with the fundamental art of what they do.

The Culture Change

Chair: What does the culture change mean in practice? Is it that CAD guys are suddenly the most important in the office, or is it more than that; might BIM bring architects back into the mainstream? CDR: We are trying I have had chats with [RIBA president] Angela Brady and weve been talking to professional bodies, but its difficult to get people on board and get them to understand what the industrys doing because most of the people of influence are disconnected from the current way of doing things. PT: Theres a need for a cultural shift in all aspects of our industry what are the cultural barriers for product manufacturers? DG: Extremely difficult cultural barriers from time to time in senior management to understand the implications for the business; same difficulties conveying it to them as to clients. Clients who want BIM, but dont know what BIM is, but they want it, they dont know why but they wonder if they can make some money out of it. PW: James mentioned at the beginning the figure of 30K for a product manufacturer to adopt BIM, but that doesnt help because I think for a SME manufacturer, all they need to do is to understand BIM and they need to be able to have a discussion about it because for me, BIM can be summed up in the word communication. And, in a lot of these cases when we talk about level of detail, we talk about the data drops, we talk about the interoperability languages and the rest of it its all about agreeing a communication strategy. I would rather see a manufacturer do nothing other than fully understand what BIM is and how

bring quite a lot of that information together through some of these proprietary tools. The initial hits/quick wins of is the building coordinated, is the asset coordinated, can we get a programme out of it? can be grabbed. The later bits towards the 20% with everybody communicating with one another are a bit further away, so we should have people working towards as much benefit as they can get via what are effectively the low hanging fruit areas. PT: Yes, the challenge is where youve got a fully integrated BIM model at design stage M&E, CMS, architecture, but then what you want to do is then to substitute the stair design with the actual stair, one model out, one model in the steelwork, M&E services, ditto. Thats where you get Oh I work in Tekla or Im not going to change my whole business for you. It might be wonderful in eight out of 10 areas, but there are those two bits which dont give you quite all the benefits you might have had with full interoperability. Youve lost some of the optimisation. SR: We can observe that integration of Revit with some analysis tools that the professional disciplines use, things such as thermal modelling, isnt perfect. Chair: Is that down to the software providers to sort out? PW: Not necessarily, its also down to a fundamental issue we have in that were still contractually obliged to deliver a project based upon a set of GA drawings and typical details. Until we see a contract which states that the model has to have a certain level of accuracy, the BIM is inherently flawed you cannot extract quantities of concrete because the model has strayed from the deliverables of the drawings. The two-dimensional drawings are currently a contractual obligation and therefore your model is handed over with massive disclaimers saying For information purposes only, do not scale, refer to drawings.

There is a lot of data we use at concept stage that is irrelevant at FM point

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

I can go about utilising all these different options which are available, than throw 30K at a particular supplier to give me a library of my components that match my catalogue. Thats ticked a box but Id still have the issue of it not being BIM. I think that its an education thing rather than a chequebook solution. I speak to a lot of manufacturers that are in a panic because theyve been told that, if youre not BIM, then youre out of our supply chain, and they turn around to me and say How big is the cheque I need to write? What do I need to do? And actually, after a few hours of conversation and they understand what is involved, they say OK, so we just need to do this, we can look at this, look at our most popular products, say to the client that were on board with it and well work the rest out later it doesnt have to cost a huge amount of money. Steve: It doesnt cost 30K. Chair: Can I play devils advocate here, what about NBS/NBLs capability to incorporate product developments, are you happy with that? PW: As I understand it, its down to individual contracts as to how readily they will update their information, how quickly you need that information updated. They are simultaneously publishing this information on five different formats and sort of hedging their bets if you like, but I asked them How do you decide whos on the list and who isnt? Its interesting because they take kind of straw polls about what to do. PE: I think its important to remember, going back to the cost to get adopted with BIM, that theres an emphasis on the product manufacturer to look at their business, look at the products, look at the market, look at the sectors. You dont have to go with all of the products in all formats from day one. PT: Whats the tipping point between suppliers here between outsourcing it and doing it yourself? PE: Resource. DG: Skillsets. PE: Cost. SC: Yeah, I agree with that. PW: In many cases, the more bespoke your deliverable, the more cost-effective it becomes to have the skills in-house. If you have a catalogue of components which are manufactured in China, and youre simply supplying them, then you might as well get a third party to deliver your catalogue of BIM products. But if you need to react to clients quicker, youll need the resources in-house. DG: In the short term, for us there was a comfort factor in knowing that the deliverable from BIM Store would be something that satisfies the COBie requirements, so we could quickly get out and be a part of this. That may change. PE: I think the driver for that change could be as early adopters of BIM, like manufacturers updating products, whether hosting partners can keep up with demand. If youre new to BIM, and are being told by someone youve got to wait six months to update products because theres a queue, that will drive a lot of people to look at doing it internally. PW: Interestingly, the largest bottleneck in the production of content by BIM Store or NBL, or whoever it is, is actually getting the correct information from the manufacturers. Getting the manufacturer to fill those tables of all the values, to put the

The fear factor exists in the product manufacturing world

Paul Evans, Celotex
Real savings on real schemes: examples

metadata in behind it, takes three months. PE: You get the spreadsheet but maybe your understanding of BIM isnt as wide as some people round the table, and you think you have to complete every element. Chair: Have manufacturers not been given enough info on the level of data they need to provide? DG: I dont think thats necessarily the problem, the hard part is for us is that theyre not door experts and were not Revit experts. Trying to get the combination of those two things is extremely difficult. PW: That comes back to the point about the fact that the industry-suitable model of what the door properties are is arguable amongst yourselves! CDR: Equally, from checking product libraries, they dont always have the data. Things like insulation might have a wonderfully creative roof with the right build-up but often Ive already got a roof in place and I will find the material I want to apply to the object, and it has no data. It doesnt tell me what the U-value is, what the toxicity is, weight, what its sustainability rating is. It needs to get to the point where its comparable, so I can compare data, because objects have the same data field attached.

primary areas where they expect to get measurable benefits are firstly around design optimisation, by stakeholders gaining a better understanding of what they are going to actually get, so whole life savings around the fact that you can optimise the design of the building not only to reduce its construction content, but also to have an impact on operational costs. The surprise there has been people who youd expect to be experienced clients who understand how that facility works couldnt understand what they were getting because they couldnt read drawings, so thats a classic example. Thats around what you might call high-level design. But weve seen some detailed design, for example coordination around access panels in a unit. So you optimise access panels, and you might reduce the number of access panels, and because there are so many of them, say 150 on a project, youve saved some capital cost but youve also optimised your FM operation going forward. So you can cash up; thats saved us an hour each time we do that operation and if we do that x number of times a year, thats saved us this. Theres a very clear and measurable lag with some clients between the time it takes for them to get a handover of the asset physically and get the O&M information for some clients in the public sector thats as much as 18 months, so again all the conversation around O&M information into a model and then into their platform is real, because its an absolute fight. Theres a cost associated with that as well people physically uploading from catalogues into Planet FM and other systems, is an area of waste that can be taken out. The first two areas of savings are proven, the last yet to be because those projects havent got to handover.

Chair: Do you have any examples of savings or benefits on live schemes that you can share? LB: Its essential we share our experiences; one of the things weve done is weve developed five or six business cases which weve just presented and are going to be put up on the Governments Task Force website. Some people do think BIMs a gimmick, but we are telling people how we used it to communicate with local businesses to get the site parameters agreed up front. That saved a fortune, because normally people will be objecting, thered be miscommunications. Also, weve done an adventurous vertical intervention in a Grade II-listed circular building, which has taken two years for us to install, were using BIM to communicate that to planners. It gave English Heritage comfort because Laing ORourke sequenced the workload to show they were taking care and protecting the building. I dont think we would have got that approved without having BIM. The commercial guys have looked at that and theyve said that because of the BIM sequencing and programming theyve saved 10%, about 250,000. Both sides Laing ORourke and our commercial guy said that weve saved miles more than that, because it would have been so loaded with risk monies traditionally. SR: In the early adopter projects, the three or four

Round Table | BIM: From Theory to Practice

ing on where weve got more efficient theyll be rolling out the benefits for everybody. CDR: From very very early on, just from using the authoring software, working in an environment where the same planned sections, elevations and 3D views are all coming from one model seems such common sense, but it still isnt done in many architectural and design practices. People are really saying BIMs not for us, its just for big practices, well Im sorry, but if you had one person using that software creating all those plans on one project, the other three can work on other projects. So, from that simple point of view, theres got to be a design benefit for everyone using the software in that environment yes there is a delay, yes there is a cost to train these people and buying the software, but realistically if they were using two dimensional software theyd still have to invest in hardware and software to get to that point and train new people, and I think its not really that much of a leap to train them on BIM software. Talking about the savings on site, its the small things, one of the low-hanging fruits Simon mentioned was clash detection, and I do hate it when people talk about BIM as being all about clash detection and it being one of the massive benefits, because its just common sense, its design coordination thats not a massive benefit. But at the same time whats actually happened is youve prevented someone from having to temporarily prop something and come and cut a massive hole in a chunk of steel, so youve got health and safety benefits, youve got cost benefits, youve got programme benefits, all by saying lets reroute through there. Its a common-sense thing that youve not really accounted for, and things like that are really measurable. Ultimately you will end up saving time and resources, therefore money. Chair: What about the product sector? SR: Its about how do you organise your components with the least waste. Its not about pods, its about bringing assemblies together. Thats what the industry should be like, but so often its not, its about bodging stuff on site, the more we get away from that, thats where the savings will be delivered. PW: One of the problems of articulating ROI for BIM has always been that it removes a lot of the error, and nobody ever wants to admit what it costs to make those errors and what sort of money is wasted. Chair: It also removes risk monies if somethings
Photos: David Berman

Weve listed 60 benefits of BIM internally, to us and clients, but its a pity that half of our clients arent interested
Peter Trebilcock, Balfour Beatty

Chair: Peter, what can you pinpoint savings-wise so far on projects? PT: Its difficult to pinpoint accurate savings on a particular project, but we have a supply chain partner providing steel framing systems, saved us three weeks on a programme, and that equates to money. Looking at BIM as a construction technique, top down, bottom, up, simulating, evaluating, optimising, saved us 10m on a project. I think weve really yet to tap into the savings that can come from the optimisation of the product data. Chair: What would that entail, to be measurable? PT: Having an electronic as-built asset, including everything. We want to be able to give the client their information, without costing them anything a proactive O&M manual. Weve got one or two of our supply chain partners working closely with us, helping to develop that, BIM-Lite touch. Sometimes that long-term management of the building will be us. But its also around knowing what you have, from a product data point of view. Once we make that transfer from a generic specification to a manufacturer, its very handy to know that across a suite of hospitals, for example, a Procure 21 client will want us to share best practice, share the learn-

not clear, you have risk, but if youve got clarity... Chair: Will transparency in BIM help to avoid switching a specification for an inferior alternative? DG: The idea of using a BIM object because its the only one available, and then essentially making it equal or approved, I guess that suggests that in a lot of cases it still will be interchangeable; there wont necessarily be a huge advantage for manufacturers. Also Casey, I know you use a lot of your own models, as opposed to manufacturer models, and theres an interchangeability afterwards. The thing I take from today that is a little bit concerning is that it does appear to be quite simple to switch things out within reason. CDR: Yes, transparency makes things better, it will highlight where things have been switched out, hopefully, but until we get to a point where each comparable object is comparable on a level basis for the same parameters, on the same units, the same scale, we cant really make a quick, simple, fair judgement. The reason why I use a lot of my own components within our own library is because I know they work for the purposes we need to use them for. We can use fairly generic components. PT: Were all in the commercial world, and the clients looking for efficiencies, cost optimisation, building optimisation. Its a complex thing when we select our supply chain partners health and safetys important, sustainability is important, reducing waste is important, getting guarantees, warranties, longevity, all of that is important, as well as the right price. Weve said to our supply chain, and those that want to work with us, that if youre not BIM-literate, were not excluding you from the party right now, but in a years time, all other things being equal, those that are, will have the advantage. Visit buildingproducts.co.uk to download a PDF version of this document.

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ROUND TABLE SPONSORS FOR MAKING THIS EVENT POSSIBLE

10