This may yet prove to be the best investment for your future! (Beats collecting coupons!)

Are you a student of architecture, engineering, design or construction management?

Interested in investing in your future? Speak Serbian and are based in the vicinity of Belgrade?

Here is a chance to win a ‘VIP student ticket’ to a day-long BIM seminar – organized by hiCAD:

http://www.hicad.rs/2012/09/savetovanje-bim-je-oko-nas/

You need to be one of the first three mailers that answer correctly the following questions:

1/ How many horses were there battling the CAD-game in New Zealand in the nineteen-nineties?

2/ What does one need to have to properly represent 3D stairs in 2D?

3/ What word still rings warning bells for me originated from the FlatCAD era?

4/ What is the second thing Vico has apparently gone away from recently?

5/ How did the industry compensate for the loss of skill-sets required for 2D based (proper) documentation?

6/ When did I first switch camps to join the construction side of the industry?

Email your answers to Zolna.murray@gmail.com together with your name and the one of the institution you are studying at.

Beats collecting coupons!

Help: there is a pattern in where the answers can be found within the blog;–

(hint: ‘last day of every second month, starting with… month’)

Alternative – but plausible answers may be accepted too;

A trailblazer …my little finger…(moved by a BIM article)

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-18300-a-model-development-al-mafraq-hospital/

Interesting article, regrettably very thin on metrics.

We learn the extent of the job (in square feet, room numbers and disciplines) and the number of current and likely future models, but are given hardly any data on how and what makes this BIM application exceptional when it comes to benefits to any of the parties involved.

There are the customary ‘power statements’ peppered through, the ‘better visual understanding’, ‘improved communication’, ‘easier problem solving’ – but still no parameters given for quantitative assessment used for measurement, or methods of comparison employed to track performance or production.

The lack of metrics is overshadowed by the almost apologetic tone of the writing with many hidden (and not so hidden) excuses aimed at the direct client. (HLMR)

The ‘real’ client, the remote one, SEHA is not mentioned, apart from indirectly, where the brief and specifications for the project BIM are noted early in the article.

A surprising omission, considering their role in setting up the project to be a full BIM-one at the beginning.
That little fact, I would have thought, on its own would have freed up iTech of needing to justify their own- and BIM’s existence on this Earth.
(as in: You asked for it!)

Why indeed did they have to run back to ‘mummy and daddy’ for support in the last two paragraphs, listing various governments, BuildSmart  (was it meant to be buildingSMART?) and their studies as ‘proof’ that BIM is profitable and ROI very high, is a bit of a puzzle for me?

Unless they felt the need to provide the framework to place the currently fashionable ‘trail-blazing public companies’ term amongst the known BIMmers of the world.

Regular readers of CW will remember iTech labeled as such earlier in the year.

http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-16128-itech-uses-bim-bang-whizzery-at-al-mafraq-hospital/

 

Escher’s stairs are alive and well! (Or the scissor-stairs get redefined!)

Another day at the office… and a bit more fun to have.

It would be really selfish of me, not to share some of it with the wider industry.

So, here we are: look at these stairs!

Model them! I don’t mind whatever software you use, in fact, doing a real scale model could be just as much fun. Make it out of sand on the beach, snow on a mountain, bake it as a cake!

Do you teach at a tech school? At a university? Get you students to do it too.

Someone will get clever, and ask me if this was ‘just a preliminary design’? Someone barely exploring a concept? Nothing to get exciting about?

Well, it may have been.

But this may be a picture of a staircase copied endlessly over and over in an already tendered out project… A huge project!

Oh, yes and don’t forget the handrail too!

 

 

 

From Zero to Hero in 18 months!

Who says engaging with BIM must be detrimental to one’s career?

BIM is doing wonders to some people’s careers. There’s a gentleman I know of, who went from being ‘just’ a CAD manager in a public company to becoming the Head of Information Services of a large entity, and getting charged with writing the BIM specification for a huge project.

And, I mean HUGE project!

(you’ll run out of space on your average calculator trying to punch in all the numbers of the value of this project!)

Talk about being in the right place in the right time! Or knowing the right people.

Either way, it is another sad day for good-old BIM.
Another day, when a CAD Manager has seized the power. Or, re-seized it?

See, I’m weary of CAD Managers getting into BIM.

Chalk it up to 20 years of working alongside them, internationally.

Can CAD Managers really become good BIM Managers?

I know, there exists a Linkedin Group with a name that suggests they could and are, still I am very skeptical.

In the spirit of my usually lame analogies, let me ask a question: would you hand over the management of an airport (including the fleet of aircraft) to someone that drove trucks all his life?

Or your super-duper railway system?

 

 

 OK, I’m being jealous. I’ve somehow missed the boat again.

 

A Qatar-list for BIM (or just sweet revenge for someone?)

Many other BIM-mers stated it before (after/alongside) me that BIM needed to be first-and-most driven by building owners.

Still, few commentators have gone into any depth on why building clients were unwilling/unable to do this effectively.
When questioned, most cite superficial reasons like cost, technology, lack of skills, resources etc.
Labeling these factors as ‘superficial’ might not be entirely fair from my side – as they CAN be significant obstacles, still, compared to the main one, and that is the ‘lack of incentive to do so’, they ARE minor.

Consequently, I have not been holding my breath waiting for a mass uptake of BIM by various building owners operating around me, although have seen a number of them getting their ’feet wet’ by specifying some (often very low) level of BIM requirements in their tender documents.

One example on the other hand, has been standing out for a while for its boldness.

A huge project from Qatar that came across my desk about 3 months ago had gone further than most.
In it, a pretty demanding BIM spec.

Our dilemma followed (internally):

Should one fully and properly price the BIM (and likely lose the job on price) or should one replace ‘pretend 2D’ (already priced) with ‘pretend 3D’ (at no extra cost) and hope for the best?

Obviously others have come to similar conclusion request for clarification from a tenderer turned up – (see below);

The answer provided by the owner’s representative was amazing (in a way) – though made me suspect that a kid had hijacked someone’s computer to write it, it was so ‘out there’!

No one in their right mind would ask for ‘all rebar design shall be BIM modelled’ – and I comment with the experience of our company having had done quite a bit of rebar modelling …

(and a bit of rebar BIM modelling too, but all????)

The answer and its originator, whether they’d turn to be THE great BIM catalyst of the region or exposed just as a kid driving a Mack, certainly made my day with their entertaining value;

On the other hand, the spec could be someone’s sweet revenge for decades of ‘underground-BIM’ work, finally getting the opportunity to make their mark.

Now, that I can relate to!

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q: The tender document requires that all design and construction information shall be modeled as a single discipline model in reference to appendix E in volume 4. (a) Please clarify that the temporary works can be excluded in the scope of 3D modeling for BIM. (b) Please clarify that the rebar model for all structure also should be carried out in the scope of 3D modeling.

 A: (a) All design and construction information (including temporary works) shall be modeled (b) All rebar design shall be BIM modeled.

 

“People don’t take your seriously because you are a woman!”

Tells me a friend/colleague as a response to my constant winging about what is happening within our company.
Nope, people don’t take me seriously because they don’t like what I say;

While I watch him walk into another trap of a ‘prove me that BIM works’ type, I’m genuinely sorry of the wasted time and effort that will be spent on this delusional round.

He will work hard for his masters, the hands-off-know-everything-yet-unable-to-do-mutch-on-their-own-middle-management of the company.

He will do the analysis and review of the incoming documents.

He will model the buildings in quite a high detail.
He will output discrepancies and warn where the risky parts are.
He will chase up the programme and sequence the construction.
He will spin the VR and section the sections.
He will render the stills, stitch up the movie.
He will pull all stops out and produce a super-duper, walking-talking BIM-mish looking output.

He may get a nod of approval at the end.

A repeat ‘order’ even, for another ‘prove me that BIM works’ exercise, yet neither will stop the company going down the tubes.

Might keep the two sides in their jobs for a while, but for how long? And why?

No, it is not OK for the management of a multinational company operating in the AEC not to know anything about BIM by now.
Boxing it up with “CAD-dish” things and let it sit on the fringes of project support is a joke.
It is neither acceptable for it to tolerate hands-off information management at any level and ridicule viable BIM approaches..
It is not right to forever ask for BIM to prove itself, while non-BIM is failing massively everywhere in the world.

Now, if you think this subject is not applying to you, yet you ARE actively involved with BIM, I’d say you are in denial.

There is an extremely high likelihood that what's happening to my company is happening at your place too and you also are constantly forced to justify your existence as a BIM-mer.

Let an old-hen give you a handy tip:

Never ever, let them pull you into another ‘prove me that BIM works’ argument;

If only….

…Someone was prepared to launch the ‘world’s only, exclusively designed for the AEC-contractor digital modelling package’!

It can’t really be that hard.

Rebranding an architectural/engineering modelling program (ArchiCAD, Microstation, Revit or other) into one focused for the contractor-end of the AEC.

Slap on a bit of a customized interface and include lots of site-based libraries and da-da…

Your market for selling the product has just tripled!

Not something one should frown on, in a tight economy.

Actually, most software vendors DO recognize the need to market to the construction segment, just aren’t able to do it well.

Where even the big 3 (or 5) of the AEC’s digital modelling tool-providers really struggle is the notion that nowadays contractors need to create (god ‘forbid model) project information from scratch!

As in, not just view, or re-purpose information provided by design consultants.

They look at it as a forgivable thought in Design@Build projects but for traditional contracts?

The idea that main-and-sub (construction) contractors could want full-blown modelling packages designed specifically for them is incompatible with the rosy-picture of ‘cradle to grave’ BIM models guided by design consultants.

So, while they dance around the consultants basing their strategies on the past, when architects and engineers were significant influencers in the AEC, they throw ‘over-chewed’ crumbs to their construction counterparts, the ones that often wield powers much higher than the consultants.

They sit on the fence, not wanting to offend their old time clients (consultants) by seriously marketing to the contractors.

This historical assumption, that engineers working from within contractors’ rooms will do just fine with second-hand toolsets packaged up for the design industry is costing the software vendors major opportunities.

Last year I wrote a post playing with the idea of the Construction Archie…

http://debunkthebim.blogspot.com/2011/10/archie-construction-bacsi.html

I stand corrected: ‘clash detection is not a con!’

It is a ‘cop out’ by the AEC consultants-sector from doing what they supposed to, as per the definition of their profession.

It is a way of legitimising half-baked designs, badly documented in unnecessarily inflated mounds of documents.

It is a smokescreen to not doing the job right in the first place.

There are of course, mitigating factors that could possibly discharge some of the responsibility from the design consultants for this state of affairs on their projects.

Clients demanding cheaper and cheaper services, contractors getting more and more contractual and armies of PI insurers’ agents breathing down their necks enforcing limitations to liabilities.

Yet, there is certainly a threshold where an engineer (or architect for that matter) should not be allowed to use such label.

For me, this is when they become walking/talking ‘post boxes’ – moving documents from one party to another, adding ‘engineering’ looking things to them, but ultimately never fully achieving a working product, until a tedious (and expensive) process of ‘design development’ (often using real building elements) by the building contractors and their subbies.

So, forgive me if I find the practice of these same consultants paddling ‘cash detection’ as the magic bullet for their clients – a bit rich, if not outward hypocritical.

Clash detection has its place – as an auditing system, a safety net, a value-engineering tool, a refining instrument.

Performed by an independent party.

(picture borrowed from  http://theconacademy.wikispaces.com/)

Whatever floats your boat… Google Sketchup is no more.

Trimble bought it, following their acquisitions of Tekla, StruCAD and ‘God knows what other little promising-looking-packages’ that they thought will together make a nice, AEC – all-encompassing BIM machine.  

It is weirdly comforting to see big guys making the same assumptions that little guys do.

Just on a significantly larger scale. Mind you, their mistakes are often personally less costly to the involved parties than those of the little ones that like me, throw everything in the pot on the back of an ill-funded belief.

The idea of a ubiquitous virtual space that will truly mimic our real-one, has been around for so long, that many treat it as ‘a proven thing’.

That it will be created by those, that are currently manipulating its base (i.e. the physical environment, the Earth, the buildings, the natural and man-made) – goes without saying.

Never-mind, that Autodesk never managed to come even close to it and never-mind that even though  Google acquired SketchUP for their dream to achieve the same, had failed, here comes another ignorant- giant, falling into the same trap.

“Welcome to my world’ – I say, you may think you have safety in numbers and size, but you might just fizzle out into another ‘good idea at the time’

A fresh new, ‘never quite the sum of-their-parts’ type BIM solution on offer, is just what we need. (not!)

Why is selling BIM so hard? (an unnecessarily long blog-post)

It is not the ‘idea’ of BIM that is hard to sell, but the ‘making it’ happen part.

Just like the way people get easily enthused into the suggestion of one day owning the ‘perfect body’, the concept of high-tech BIM is quite alluring.

Yet, the full approach is hard to have people to buy into.

Comparable the path to that never- to achieve, magical waist-line, the road to a ‘working BIM’ is long, tedious, mostly up-hill.

Things would be a bit easier, if we all did not have to pretend.

If the sellers of BIM solutions could go out to the AEC industry and say: “you 3 parties have been conning one-another for two decades using certain weapons. Most of those had become ineffective. How about looking into our new arsenal on offer?”

For various and fairly obvious reasons, this approach to product-placement is not undertaken by most that DO try to sell BIM related tools and services.

Instead, they keep on parading weak and illusive reasons for why their potential clients should make fundamental changes to their long-established work methods.

Like ‘improve productivity’, ‘enhance transparency’, ‘find the obscure pipe that will likely hit your beam before the collision happens’…etc…

This line of attack is possibly even worse than trying to get someone embark on losing 20 kg’s of weight by saying that there is a bit of flab around their elbows.

Or asking someone else to learn to speak Mandarin (fluently) because they may be asked directions in that language from tourists one day.

Telling them instead that they’re obese?

Or that soon enough most businesses will be owned by the Chinese?

Calling a spade a spade?

Not in this industry, and I know why they can’t do it.

How could  BIM service-providers possibly promote services that ‘identify and quantify shoddiness within consultants’ documents’ to building owners without basing their arguments on those being ‘shoddy’ in the first place? Risk getting forever cut off any work coming from the consultant sector?

Or could BIM software dealers really target the same consultants with their wares by saying their tools can effectively hide the lack of (almost any) construction skills by those that prepare IFC documents?

Telling your clients that you know they are pretty weak in their core activities and you can help them get away with it, may not be the best door-opener. In the AEC, anyway.

The finance sector on the other side… I digress…

Those that hope, that by tricking owners into mandating BIM would mean an easy road into nudging the industry to practice more BIM, may be in for a bit of a surprise, as well.

They may presume that building owners have the highest investment in the AEC game, but a careful examination of the last 2 decades of the industry’s workings will show up, that in the ‘3 way arm-twisting’ game the building owners do not always end up footing the (proportionately) highest bill.

Unfortunately, not even when the building owners are large public bodies, i.e. governments.

The crazy ‘marry go-around’ of the building creation industry most of the time has been oiled by the small traders, mum-and-dad house owners and would be serial landlords. The same ones that keep on putting governments in place that are too scared to change unsustainable AEC conditions because of the small-time pundits are still hoping to finally land the big price.

Selling anything that will bring transparency or highlight any of the unsaid facts of such a game is hard.

Selling clash-detection of ‘yet to be built pipes and beams’ is so much easier.

Long time for BIM to get anywhere yet! Long live the AEC in denial!