Now and again you read something that just triggers a new idea, answers some question you’ve had for some time or brings some clarity to a specific topic.

For me, it was the parts of the book, BIM and Integrated Design. The moment didn’t come from reading and following along the trends of BIM and what is described therein but rather from the initial descriptions of Integrated Design and how it relates to BIM but more so, how it relates to the essence of collaboration and communication - the different forms of communication.

The further I went down this rabbit hole, the more I came to the realisation that we are implementing BIM, Integrated Design & Parametric Modelling wrong. This a thought that caught me off-guard but put some clarity on why most companies are struggling with the adoption.

What are we doing wrong?

That is the question, right?!

from Unsplash

Looking at global trends and implementation I noticed that we go deep into the implementation of BIM and the nuts and bolts of the technology and the process - which can be complex - but most struggle with the People side, the required change management (not discussed today).

This is where the analysis becomes interesting, if you look at the tech & processes, it’s almost sold that people need to get the purest of modelling, the cleanest of databases and ultimately deliver the best model at the exact time to do “BIM” correctly. This is where I found it hard to get people to not only start a journey into 3D but to go full BIM, the final frontier.

If you just had to be content with this, then it wouldn’t have been all that bad, but now people are adding more things on top of BIM, our fake news, without a focus on what is needed or required of BIM.

This article is my attempt in capturing my thoughts down into something more reasonable, implementable and functional for any level of organisation or person going into BIM. The idea is to capture the 3 essences of BIM; People, Process & Technology; and match that to Integrated Design, Parametric Modelling and BIM.

Essence of BIM

When we look at BIM, we tend to analyse it from the modelling side of the project and when you introduce ISO 19650, it focuses the information flow to hand-over of assets models and not so much on the methods taken to get there.

We do tend to fill the gaps of ISO by providing collaboration, communication, etc. frameworks but don’t give formal instructions on how this should look.

If we had to look at BIM according to ISO 19650 and had to simplify it (yes, this will be a very simplified version of it), there are 2 major functions of the standard that can be identified:

Breaking down data silos
Deliver a data-centric asset (graphical, non-graphical & data)

Bear with me, I know this is an oversimplification of BIM, and before you jump on the “witch hunt” bandwagon, hear me out.

Now BIM does have a few other requirements but most, if not all, can be distilled into the 2 points.

ISO 19650 series delve more into this process of delivering the asset handover and refer to strategies that are needed to get there. These are normally captured in a BIM Plan, BEP, EIR, AIR, etc. However, these documents never really discuss the ‘How To’ get there, just that it is needed and what is needed.

So let’s analyze the 2 points a little more.

Data-Centric Handover

The more I look into this the more I think we are overselling the handover process and what is needed. Looking at what most projects are requesting, the deliverables (taking into consideration that some projects want the native modelling files) are CoBIE and IFC.

COBie is just a large Excel file with a lot of data placed into rows and columns with each tab representing certain types of assets. The file is normally uploaded or imported into different AM/FM systems and is used there.

For IFC, a 3D model where most of the asset information is attached to the relevant elements. This model is a snapshot in time, so doesn’t end up being a live model with data. There are a lot of advantages for IFC and is one of the industry standards for the delivery and sharing of 3D models, especially between platforms and software. For those, less knowledgeable on the file format, you can imagine this being the pdf version for 3D models. Readable by all software.

There are some open conversations for open formats like json formats as these types of formats are readable by almost any software and are easily useable across platforms.

At the end of the day, we are looking at how we deliver project data for AM/FM in a useable method and this can/ will change depending on the client and project but apart from that, there isn’t much more to the data.

Silo Breakdown of Data

A big part is the de-siloing of unconventional user silos, the incorporation of facility/ asset managers, construction and sub-contractors and more involved consultants (in some instances the public and other bodies). The de-siloing goes past the communication part and into the information sharing, the access to 3D models and how that information can be used by other parties (4D) for costing from models, (5D) on sequencing by using time with the models, and so on. The ISO standards refer to the cross-use of these more intelligent 3D models but don’t make it a requirement to use them.

Let’s expand on the silos between design consultants and how to improve it, this is one of my original misconceptions. In the past, I’ve placed a lot of emphasis on the use of technology to resolve the collaboration within BIM projects and how BIM just “magically” will make the problems disappear. What I realised is that design collaboration will happen no matter what tools are used, sharing of information was and will always happen regardless of BIM. The difference is the technologies that improve this and this is making a bigger wave than the process of BIM itself.

What I will put here is that the “traditional” way of thinking about BIM opened the conversations for better coordination of models (clash detection), improved file sharing (CDE) and modelling, and readability of models (ArchViz, VR/AR, model viewing platforms), simulation & analysis (sustainability, performance, etc) and ultimately the conveying of final design intent. All of these concepts came out of BIM or the possibilities thereof, but it’s not BIM, they are something else. They are connected to something different, something else, and their outcomes are meant for more. I will even go so far as to say the current dimensions of BIM (4-7D) should be included in these other possibilities.

BIM doesn’t talk about…

How we get to this ‘fancy’ data model, the journey from starting in 3D software like Revit, putting up our CAD Capes and starting a new or more robust way of working.
How we collaborate with our design partners and even further with the contractor and sub-contractors during design-built stages.
How we start this process, developing our skills in software and 3D, building trustworthy relationships to collaborate better and coordinate better.

All of this isn’t showcased or discussed in BIM. This is where I think we are going wrong. We are all talking about BIM as if this is our 1 solution to our global crisis and, now thinking, about why people struggle to define, implement and understand BIM.

BIM in a different approach

Let’s look at the 3 “unorthodox” requirements of BIM:

Modelling, we don’t need fancy models for deliverables we just need relevant 3D ones especially when we provide IFC or CoBIE deliverables, however, if we build reuse-able content we can improve project deliveries and timelines and this is what has been one of the promises to design consultants. This can be compared to the concepts of parametric modelling.
Collaboration, Integrated Design is all about bringing design processes together and creating an integrated design model for better and quicker designs as a collective rather than individuals or in isolation. In part, this ties into what BIM talks about in de-siloing.
BIM, Information management is really what this is about. Adding and benefitting from data associated with graphical and non-graphical data points. How this information is transferred at project close-out and other project milestones.

If you look at the 3 points, you can see that they are different concepts that are woven together with technology, processes and people.

Now if we had to take BIM away, what will we end up with?

In my mind, we will have reusable, adaptable and flexible objects that create the opportunity for a full design project model. We have great collaboration protocols and processes with an integrated design which still enables us to create and run coordination processes. These models can still be used in any of the simulations and analysis requirements and at the end these models can be used in construction and potentially be handed over to the clients. It will just have the relevant 3D items. The only thing we don’t have is a data-centric model for hand-over and asset management.

Unconventional Roadmap to BIM

Taking all these concepts together, I wanted to be able to provide a roadmap to implementing BIM without actually having to ‘BIM’. The idea is to take the other industry concepts and use them to fill the gap.

By no means are the suggestions a replacement of a full BIM deployment but rather, a more unorthodox, approach to stop overwhelming everybody with this Everest of an adoption. The idea is to focus on a value approach of what software can do for organisations and how to better collaborate with what you know and then expand to the more unconventional collaboration points, ultimately all of these points together create a BIM environment, especially when the right project is asking for it. As BIM is project related not necessarily company related.

What I’m proposing is to focus on Parametric Modelling first, then on Integrated Design and lastly on BIM. The good part about this process is when you start the journey, you don’t have to become an expert in the first 2 areas before you are doing BIM or the next step for that matter. We can focus on what is needed to be relevant to the industry, being able to showcase our performance and build our new cultures around these principles.

Starting the Roadmap

It’s easy enough to say that we should start this approach and that we can start BIM’ing without really doing it. However, making adoption and implementation of any sort is still difficult.

Looking at the roadmap, you can see that:

2D is our past (it’s not lost, we are just moving to different tools)
3D is the start, this is normally objects that are just 3D but have no real intelligence.
Parametric Modelling is the use of content with intelligence to manage and control size, shape & data.
Integrated Design, starts by breaking the conventional communication channels by getting earlier involvement and collaboration with relevant consultants.
BIM, package all of these with some additional processes but the majority of the hard work is done in the previous steps.

Here I’ve identified in each area a basic checklist of what to think about and start implementing:

Parametric Modelling

I’m looking at the starting point as if there hasn’t been any formal adoption of 3D software or if there is still an area of improvement on the basics.

I would recommend following these steps:

Software template according to company standards. Just note, that in most cases the new software won’t do things the same way as what you’ve done and there will be some compensation that has to happen for the new adoption to be successful.
Training. With a focus on creating relevant content for your project types. These training sessions should cover the basics of what people need to know and over time more advanced techniques should be taught.
Parametric modelling isn’t just about object creation, in early design stages this can be used to explore different masses of a building. Although I focus more on the smaller content, larger design workflows will also be impacted.
Parametric 101. This is the starting point of creating adaptive families, things like a single door where you can change the width in an instance inside the project and doesn’t require the remodelling of the family.
Parametric 102. More advanced topics on how to be able to create larger assemblies of families that still retain their flexibility within the assembly.
Parametric 103. Very advanced topics and becomes more specialised. This area is normally the creation of content that changes the analysis or simulations for projects, and design understanding and can include adaptive families and parametric masses. At this point, it would deviate more to computational design rather than just modelling.

This focus here as a starting point is to get grips will good behavioural modelling habits and create content that has a longer-lasting use and doesn’t feel just once off.

You can naturally enhance this more with other methods and software.

Integrated Design

Is a conversation on how to collaborate and then implement with a team, this can only happen if all the people are on the same journey or playing field, knowing the impact and causes.

Here is a framework of what to have conversations about:

How early can we onboard more? This is a difficult conversation, but getting the client to commit to the earlier appointment of other stakeholders, if you can bring in people you trust earlier into the process to discuss and give recommendations the better. This can/will include the contractor and sub-contractors.
How are we going to collaborate on this project? Will this be a cloud project or local, will we sit in the same office or remote, will we live link models? All of these questions can assist in defining the process. The more life you can make the better it is and the closer you move to a fully implemented integrated design process.
How early will we onboard the next consultant? One of the key concepts of Integrated Design is to bring in the next person before you traditionally would. So bring in the structural engineer when you have some sort of mass concept for their input on the structural design, the same for mechanical, electrical, wet services, etc.
What simulation or analysis strategies are we going to implement? It’s always a good idea to share implementation requirements and strategies to make sure everybody is designing and modelling with the right outcomes in mind.

As I’m new to this concept, what I’ve noticed as a trend is that Integrated Project Delivery is an outcome of Integrated Design, which effectively means that we can deliver a fully coordinated model for construction and possible hand-over, that talks to the design & build intent. Sounds familiar?

Building Information Modelling

On the last step, it’s time to BIM.

Once we’ve reached this point in our journey, you have more technical, communicational & workflow processes down than you would’ve expected and the last few boxes to check for a BIM project aren’t that complicated.

Last few boxes to check:

Get the AM/ FM involved early in the project.
Get the relevant documents (AIR, EIR, BEP) down on the management side of projects.
Model for milestones, a need not a want method.
Look at the development of the Asset Deliverables.

The ISO 19650 requirements aren’t that complicated to what it conveys, it is a set of processes that focuses more on documentation and record keeping of processes to get to a hand-over that will benefit all along the way.

Think of this, the PM on the project needs to document things related to the delivery of the built assets, ISO focuses on the digital asset with the same documentation principles.

Final Thoughts

This approach reduces the complexities of BIM into manageable steps. The added benefit, you are now growing the capabilities of other industry concepts and each concept builds on top of each other which effectively means you are now “multi-tasking” in growth. Although you are not fully engaged with one process, you are engaging in a multi-organisation change in steps that is more palatable to individuals in the organisations. This process also helps teams to upskill other companies rather than individual companies pushing their agenda.

Learn from the Mechanical Engineer about room sizes and designs of systems but teach him the feel of a space.

I believe more parts can be added to this adoption and each organisation should take the time to understand what industry processes to implement, how fast and what people they have that can assist with this.

Writers thinking

What has been identified isn’t a full analysis of each process and is very much a summary of core concepts, it is worth noting that most of the processes have overlaps with each other and the idea is to focus on the overlaps initially, to cover more ground especially if unsure of why this needs to be done. This also enables organisations to risk less on areas (trend or not) but also build relevant skills within their organisation.

BIM is also much of a project deliverable and not all projects would require the deliverable care needed. It is then safer to build relevant skills in other areas or trends that add value, and when you do get to that requirement of BIM then it does feel like a switch being switched on.

Follow me for my unravelling of the big bad world of BIM, my insights and my analysis, on LinkedIn and the CitizenBlog Blog. And if you feel up to chat, agree or disagree on a topic, please let me know here.

References

1. BIM and Integrated Design - Randy Deutsch

AI involvement

1. This article was reviewed by ChatGPT & Bard.

2. LeonardoAI for cover graphic.

I am part of the Amazon Associates club and will get a commission from any sales used with the links above.

Search This Blog

CitizenBIM Blog by Machiel

Are we adopting BIM Wrong?