A ‘Low key BIM blog’ day... Define and safeguard your spatial ‘Frame of reference’.

Today, a tip for the doers and the developers!

In model based documentation of buildings – there is one basic rule you must follow:

Define and safeguard your spatial, model-based ‘Frame of reference’.

There are 5 parameters I regard as essential to the system:

Orientation (North Point)

Origin (related to a known POR)

X, Y and Z coordinates, (Cartesian Coordinates, a set of numbers that will locate any point in space.)

There are few things that get architects annoyed as much as forcing them under constrains before they are ready (if ever)  still, I strongly advocate for a project environment where clear 3D references guide the originators as well as the users of information.

Lack of spatial reference makes interpretation difficult but intelligent tools that provide grids and levels (X, Y, Z) for projects to reference all information-to can make/brake a job.

Be ruthless with your reference system. Put it in place and safeguard throughout the process.

Here is also a good opportunity for Building Materials (products) manufacturers to assist the development of digital tools:

Create dynamic ‘coordinate/orientation/navigation’ systems that will work seamlessly in 3D and 2d Switch a Gridline object to a Section view, a vertical level-line to a Plan.

Make it easy to set up, also robust. BRAND it!

Even if it has nothing to do with your product, it will be used constantly!

Missing Ingredient in BIM: Critical Mass! also, Which one of Google or Facebook is going to crack the BIM code first?

Two seemingly unconnected questions. Still, those in-the-know, know.

BIM will happen when the modus operandi of the present,  non-BIM AEC industry is not longer sustainable and when high enough percentage of clients demand that what is currently sold to them as BIM (but is not really) starts making a measurable difference to their projects.

So, when will this critical mass be reached? What is the smallest number of projects, clients, practitioners needed to make it happen? What is the size at which the AEC will undergo a fundamental change in regard to its operations?

I’d guess that this ‘size’ is ill defined to even the best minds of the ‘Autodesks’ of the world.

First, because it can not be viewed in isolation, separated from the rest of the world, it is influenced by everything and is very fluid.

Second, because there is not real historical precedent to compare it to (no, the rise and rise of Flatacad was not the same);

The critical mass may not even be such a high number at all! If enough of participants of the AEC ‘monopoly board’ (see image attached) buy in at any one time around a number of projects, the scales could be easily tipped and a snowball effect achieved.

For BIM to work, it will need to become common. Google is common. Facebook is too.

BIMologists worldwide, take note of the SIMS phenomenon: SIMS is a BIM!

Not quite, but better than most ‘self-claiming’ BIM system I know of;

SIMS:

Smart environment: preloaded with intelligence – designed to aid/hinder the ‘player’ and still keep the integrity of the game;

Smart tools: predesigned and sealed yet customisable and non-limiting;

Smart editing: combination of rigidity and flexibility allowing players to innovate and explore, while working within the framework of the game;

Smart navigation: intuitive and easy to use, yet fast enough on (almost any) home-computer.

‘Mainstream BIM’:

Environment: the ‘template’ – at best mildly useful at worst clumsy and irrelevant; If you ignore it (i.e. start from an older project) it failed its purpose.

Tools: over generic, over flexible, too much work

Editing: table based, long-winded, a hassle

Navigation: slow, slow, slow

Now, of course, if you interrogated a serious SIMS user, they would BOMBARD you with lists of features they are unhappy with, things they need to do ‘cheats’ on, other bits and piece they want SIMS developers to fix;

So, no – they don’t think they have their hands on the best BIM in the world.

However, put them on a mainstream BIM for a day and probably will not talk to you again for weeks;

Your response: “get real, these kids MUST learn bla bla bla..” You may be right – may not be too!

BIMologists worldwide, YOU can’t afford to ignore the SIMS phenomenon!

http://www.thesims3.com/

Flatcad is a machine, BIM is an organism!

Flatcad is a machine with the purpose to assist in the performance of a set of clearly definable human tasks.

Logically, BIM would be one too, maybe a bit more complex, visually enhanced and spatially aware.

BIM is not really a machine at all, though at its heart there necessarily sits a device not unlike a machine.

What makes BIM more than a machine? It is an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently by properly and methodically collecting, processing and outputting information.

It has many parts, but the purchase of each and/or all is no guarantee for a good BIM.

BIM as an organism has the qualities that can’t be fully explained by examining each of the parts. Rather, these result of the relationship and interaction of the parts. 

Sounds too abstract? Here is an example how the ‘machine’ and the ‘organism’ differ:

Your standard CAD-i could mess up only ‘so-much’ in Flatcad. Get a line on a wrong layer, use a font that does not fit the company’s manual.

On the other hand, if you have an uncontrolled BIM environment, a small mistake, intentional or not can bomb your entire project.

The difference is like riding a bike along a suburban street or getting a plane off a runaway.

You need to aim for a fully controlled BIM environment or stick to Flatcad!

BIM in the ‘chain-stores’ business

In the mid nineties I was involved in the documentation of a dozen local branches of an international bank. The process was well thought out, we received a fat book on all the standard layouts, fittings, finishes and details. A resident architect familiar with the codes adopted them to the branches’ spatial requirements, we drew up the drawings (Flatcad) and all went (mostly) well.

A decade later, my company documented a series of outlets for a retail chain providing (mid-range) clothing for children. These shops were located in the USA, ME, India, South Africa. (Designed in NZ).

Parallel to these, we worked on a top end designer shop also part of a chain, this time a highly luxurious (French) one.

On both of these jobs the designers were based on world-wide locations, often speaking different languages, even using different writing (characters); More than once our Flatcad files turned up showing little squares where notes and dimensions were meant to be.

What I want to be pointing out though is that despite of 10 yrs time difference, a much more global playing-field and requirements for complex teamwork, the working methods changed very little from the way we documented the bank branches.

How does this sit with the ‘BIM evolutionary theorists’ viewpoint?

Surely, if any field, the franchises’ should’ve jumped on the bandwagon of BIM by now?

The Sectional Question: Do you do many in fine detail or few and rough?

In architecture, a section is a drawing that cuts through the building vertically.

Resolve then Represent or Represent so you CAN Resolve?

A bit of a tongue twister:

As a designing/documenting architect regardless of the media you use to assist you conceptualise, interpret, resolve and document – do you clearly buy into one method or the other?

Here are descriptions for both:

Group One (first resolve then represent) does 1-2 sections through a typical building – maybe a few more in a complex building. Draws them in 1:10 (metric) or 1:25 and beautifully notate with lots of long winded descriptions. All the studs (in timber walls) are shown, tiles on roofs, insulation squiggles.

Group Two (represent to resolve) creates dozens of sections, everywhere a different condition is likely to be present; A change in level, a cut through beam, wall fittings, dropped ceilings, bulkheads.

The sections are ‘empty’ looking (if from a model, they are unadorned and straight cuts) – intelligent labels are linked to elements if anything is notated at all.

There is really no right or wrong answer, both groups can be achieving their goals just fine.

I have observed though a clear tendency of those from Group 2 (even when working in a purely drawing based environment) to lean more towards model-based approach given the chance.

Could be a self-test for BIM readiness. Try it!

The future looks bright for emerging career BIMologists operating in Australia!

Today, I came across a report titled:

Productivity In The Building Network:

Assessing The Impacts Of Building Information Models

Report to the Built Environment Innovation and Industry Council (29 October 2010);

Produced by Allen Consulting Group;

A riveting read!

I have many favourite parts  – one sentence stands out from the rest:

“BIM is expected to deliver many benefits to industry at costs that are not materially higher than traditional or alternative management approaches.”

Actually, the sentences is repeated at least 3 times through the text, so they must be pretty confident about this (sure, they do list factors that play a role in impending adoption of BIM..)

So, career BIMologist – aim for Australia – the stronghold of buildingSMART – they’ve cornered BIM.

For my part, I have my own little agenda. When I’m asked next what policy interventions would I suggest to assist industry-wide implementation of BIM, I’ll list my top 3:

1/ make it compulsory for all construction materials to come with a BIM barcode (a digital chip that carries graphical and non graphical information)

2/ make all building permit authorities assess and approve building designs model-based, online, instantaneously; (using material BIM barcodes and smart web based tools)

3/ design all public buildings on SIMS. (so public can see what is being designed, how much will the buildings cost and how will they operate).

Aim HIGH!

BIM and modularity in buildings (MIB)

“This BIM thing is great... for the ones that design boxes, or at least buildings that are very modular... Unfortunately, or fortunately we are more the creative type...”

...brushes a client away your perfectly pitched presentation on how BIM benefits architects and the end-clients of construction projects.

Don’t despair, this is just another barrier that needs to be broken down – the perception of incompatibility between creative and modular, the free form and BIM, the designers and the ones that make buildings happen.

It is well known by now that BIM’s object based approach is a natural fit for the modular and this IS an advantage as opposed to an imposing, constraining characteristic.

So, what if we turned the argument around and claimed that ALL buildings are (or should be) modular to at least some degree? (see previous posts on ‘kit of parts buildings’ and separating what ‘matters’ from the ‘mundane’ – both are closely related to the subject of building modularity);

Historically, best architects have been the ones that created magic out using modular elements.

The best BIMmer Architects are those that interrelate BIM and MIB. They use BIM to find the best MIB, propose MIB based buildings and make the most of BIM by creating incredible structures not long ago unimaginable.

It is not a coincidence that Gehry Technologies spun out off Gehry’s design studio!

http://www.gehrytechnologies.com

BIM could work really well, if everyone played nicely!

Let’s face it – the likelihood of this happening in the near future is pretty slim; Why would that happen anyway? Construction is a competitive industry, even if some market-forces had not worked overly well in the past within it, construction generally plays by the rules of ‘supply/demand’.

There are monopolies that twist these, alliances and deals that dance on the edge of ‘above the board’, government and public building projects awarded in a somewhat unsavoury way, but by-and-large – it is a robust industry that plays the rough game with some civility.

So, it is unlikely – for it to suddenly drop strategies, intelligence and other advantages built up over the years (sometimes hundreds of) and start ‘playing nicely’.

Most contemporary BIM theories are based on the premise, that in the digital environment of the BIM project, data should flow freely between various participants and no constrains that hinder collaboration should be imposed.

Originators of this theory must be unaware that ‘project information’ is the biggest weapon in this industry and whoever has control over it, wins the game. Also, lack of/or misinformation are the biggest risks most participants face and the ability to manage these makes a party competitive and successful.

I believe, that the BIM that will eventually succeed will not be the self regulative, ‘play nicely’ type, but something completely different! Watch this space!

“Who is your AKPO partner? Do they do your BIM too?”

...asked me someone recently. You’ll be pleased to know, I managed to look mildly intelligent and not say “What?”. ... for days afterwards, I kept musing over the sad fact, that I ended up in a field, where one blinks and a whole new ‘delivery strategy’ emerges.

Knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) is outsourcing, where knowledge-related work is carried out by workers in a different company (and often country) to save cost.

Well, it is unfortunate that I never really bought into the FlatCAD type (I guess, not-knowledge based) outsourcing. For me, it was:

“The market is changing. We are no longer able to stay competitive and provide zillions of useless drawings at a price that clients wanting buildings are prepared to pay;

So, we’ll go to India (Hong Kong, China...) and we’ll buy twice as many drawings for half as much price and the clients will care even less about the building they initially set out to get...”

Hmmmm... If you ask me, no one was a winner. Not in the long term.

Otherwise, BIM would not have needed to happen at all!

See, I believe that BIM emerged, albeit reluctantly and unconvincingly BECAUSE the FlatCAD concept – outsourced or not, was no longer viable.

Outsourcing and BIM? Forget it, if it is possible (and in fact it is) it will not be the AKPO type!