Orders
my overly critical friend.
Since
my post a couple of days ago, he’s been labeling himself as the Devil’s
Advocate’s Devil’s Advocate or DADA for short;
He
is not liking my flippant dismissal of the article that (to quote it again):
“has put to rest the question of whether BIM
pays off for small-scale facility upgrades”.
So,
I suspend for the moment my self-imposed limit of 225 words-per-blog-post and
embark on a detailed explanation, why I wrote what I had, deeply offending my
BIM enthusiast friend and many others I presume, along the way.
“Apples for apples”
While
there is limited amount of project data provided within the article, it is hard
to see, how these would (both the noted and omitted ones) possibly assemble in
an environment where the first project becomes a ‘control group’ for the
second.
A ‘control group’ is generally used as
the benchmark against which to detect and measure changes that may occur in the experimented on groupdue to the effect
of changing a single variable (use of BIM in this case).
I just don’t see close enough resemblance
between the two, without a lot of mathematical gymnastics applied to the
conditions.
“The
first step of the plan was to demonstrate the value of BIM with an apples-to-apples
project analysis, comparing a just-finished renovation using CAD with a second
one using BIM.”
Note the ‘just-finished’ label
describing case 1 (traditional) – when in fact the text below says it was
completed between November 2008 and May 2009. The BIM one on the other hand was
delivered between January and July 2011. Even if we ignore the inaccurate use
of “just-finished” of the first statement, the time lap between the two cannot
be. Two years are a long time in construction where many factors can
dramatically change, especially when these two years straddle one of the
wobbliest stages in recent AEC history.
“Both
projects are adjacent to the same occupied space. It was key for us to be able
to get that comparison with the complexities of the space being the same for
both projects,” says Michael DiFranco, manager of facility planning and
development for Bronson.
I’m not a healthcare design specialist
so I can’t confirm or otherwise with authority if the two spaces indeed could
be considered to be the ‘same’, however when I look at the supplied floor-plans
I’m left with a nagging feeling that this statement is stretching the facts a
bit too far.
The first one has significantly larger
and fewer rooms than the second, they are of different sizes and adjacent to
different spaces. They serve different functions and can possibly be involving
very different sets of equipment suppliers and installers.
Then come the ‘hard facts’, figures
tabled and trends highlighted. Manipulative use of colours (red/green) arrows
highlighting rises and drops.
Despite this scientific looking
document, we do not get to know how for example, budgets were arrived at in
either of the cases, a change in the QS personnel (quite possible in the 2 year time frame
covered) on its own can make the two projects comparisons impossible and the
data unreliable.
The drop of change orders could be
contributed to myriad reasons too, more /less competent people on either side
could impact on the numbers, so could client initiated changes, amended scope,
delays in some supplies, supplementation of long-lead items etc.
Being a GMP contract, the general
contractors (if there were 2 different ones) could have chosen to absorb
certain cost with the view of keeping a potentially lucrative client. Even the
same contractor could have treated the two projects significantly differently
due to change in market conditions, labor costs etc.
“The
biggest benefit of using BIM is coordinating construction virtually instead of
in the field. This has long been the advantage of BIM on large projects,” says
Karl Kowalske, principal at Diekema Hamann, the architect and engineer of
record for the Bronson projects.
While this may be true for the quoted
company, if it is, it is not something I’d be proud of.
What they are confirming here is that
sufficient pre-construction coordination has been universally lacking on non
BIM projects, delivered via CAD on their previously delivered projects.
The stated $ 40,000 fee for ‘BIM’ is
also something one should be curious about, what were the ‘additional’ services
that BIM was bringing for the client for ‘extra money spent’? In theory, there
could have been ‘traditional’
consultants out there in the market place able and prepared to provide
exceptional results for the same scope without asking to be paid for the BIM
part too.
Had the client representatives had the
chance to opt in/out of BIM with full knowledge of what they were getting?
“BIM
creates many benefits, but using this tool is not free, especially when the
owner specifies a data-rich model designed for ongoing facility management use.
Kowalske says paying the architect/engineer to develop the BIM documents
typically results in savings for the owner.”
The above statement is probably the most
damaging for BIM, while still true in parts.
First, BIM is not a tool, though it uses
BIM-enabled tools. Data rich FM ready models can be produced from well-maintained
design/construction models at a reasonable or no extra cost, especially if this
process is compared to preparing traditional as-builts, usually included in the
base contract cost.
BIM, especially labeled as a ‘tool’ does
not on its own save money for clients, competent people using good tools and
processes do.
Also manipulator PMs, questionable
contracts, out of synch market conditions and a little bit of luck can
contribute to tip the scales and deliver a windfall in savings for the client.
These are rarely listed publically.
My friend (DADA) is unhappy with me regularly
barking up the wrong (BIM-promoters’) tree and tells me off when I discredit
their findings.
I’m sorry to disappoint him, but someone
is ought to do this.
Had the pilot-BIM-ers quoted here,
predicted performance for the examined project based on numerous typical
projects done through ‘traditional processes’ before and compared that to the
actually achieved results from employing BIM would have had more use, I think.
Even more credibility would have been
earned had they genuinely assessed the difficulties in staying on top of things
using the traditional processes.
As much as we all yearn to quantify the
benefits of BIM, bad examples do more harm than good.
If this was just a self-promoting
blog-post (the types I’d write) – it would be forgivable, the danger is, that
soon enough, software promoters, students writing essays and careless journalist will pick up the same and use it as
a ‘set-in-the stone proof’.
Pseudo-science is already widely spread
within BIM, let’s not add more to it.
* See the original article here
or
