So much for user focus, interactivity and easy access.

I hit a bit-of-a low point with my blog-writing recently.

To look for some hidden inspiration and stop repeating myself I re-read some of the posts from January.

Quite early in the piece and I can’t recall the reasons for it anymore, I started offering cool little files to my readers.

These were (and still are) outstanding examples of user focused communication tools developed for the construction industry.

The initiative turned out to be a flop.

First, because I set the share-button wrong on the Google-docs setting. Second, many people had trouble downloading the files even when I fixed the sharing. Consequently not many persisted with attempting to manipulate them.

So much for user focus, interactivity, easy access.

Some emailed to ask for samples, other declared publicly that they NEVER downloaded anything from the net.

Hurt pride aside, this is interesting from the point of the global BIM!

We explore at lengths the BIM utopia where everything is shared with everyone, everywhere and in numerous Ds, real time.

We argue about authoring software, viewers, protocols, while I struggle with making a 1Meg PDF file available to the masses to explore.

I know of Dropbox, WeTransfer and all sorts of other controlled-vehicles available for over-the-net file sharing, I merely wish to point out a discrepancy here, between what we say and do in our daily BIM-ings.

How the toilet handicapped the BIM...

If you were an English teacher and walked past a “handicap toilet” at your work daily, would it make you cringe?

You may think I misspelled this, I did not.

Even with my limited English knowledge I know that ‘handicap’ as is, stands for a noun or a verb, for it to be an adjective it needs to become ‘handicapped’.

Putting aside the inappropriateness of the terminology for a facility that serves people with some disability, it continues to amuse me to also find the grammatically correct (but misleading nevertheless) alternative of ‘disabled toilet’ sign on doors.

I have my own ‘handicap toilet’ that I hold secret grudges against.

One? Millions.

All those WCs, real and imagined that over the years turned their architects off documenting in 3D.

I’ve seen time and time both architects and their caddies (drafties) opt out of creating full, integrated, digital models of their designs because the WC fittings they chose had no accurate digital representations available.

Or when they did, thanks to product suppliers, they often turned into self-exploding bombs killing the host files with their size and structure.

Toilets do have a lot to answer for when it comes to why BIM is where it is.

I suggest it become mandatory for all bathroom fitting suppliers to provide light, easy to use, intelligent digital representations of their products.

(The first paragraph is courtesy of the school that two of our children currently attend.)

Pebbles or breadcrumbs: Navigation through a set of typical building-project-drawings...

...should be easy and straight forward.

It is not, firstly because of the sheer number of drawings that are needed to be opened (or even worse, located, then opened), secondly the information is usually highly fragmented, duplicated and uncoordinated throughout the drawing-set.

Let’s for the moment accept that for the immediate future we are stuck with 2D PDF (soft) prints of drawings provided by consultants.

Still feel that we should be able to get more out of them. For example at minimum:

Have digital bookmarks and cross references to navigate between various views and drawings.

I expect many of you from the consultants’ side of the fence will be offended, possibly outraged. How dare I suggest extra work for you when you already are overworked under paid and not appreciated?

First, I don’t think this is unreasonable. What other industry is as ill-equipped to sort and package its data in a user-friendly way as AEC?

You go to a fast-food place, order three different types of coffees and all cups will be clearly marked.

Secondly, I have another agenda: I hope, that you’d choose to change some processes.

Digital book-marking and two-way referencing, both significant tasks could be made more palatable by doing 2 things:

Reduce the number of drawings generated to an optimum number and base all information on a digital, coordinated, project model.

Sometimes you can positively detect the presence of the ghost model;

But the consultants insist everything was done in 2D.

Recently I was working on a reasonably large project.

I could ‘sense’ the model in there, the moment I put my hands on the drawings.

The third time in recent months, I knew the consultants used a model. The only question was, how far did they take it?

I looked for a pattern. The elevations have been definitely doctored – sections too.

Big deal? Not really – but still fascinating!

Think about it, there are two possible scenarios at work here:

One is that the consultant team IS using a model, purely for own risk management and only for limited stages of design/documentation and parts of the project.

Second option – the consultant representatives we’d been dealing with had genuinely though there was no modelling done within their office and some of the (possibly junior) staff did modelling work on their own initiative.

Both cases I find intriguing, the first one raises the question of why a company that chooses to use modelling for parts of the process ‘flattens’ the project and stays 2D for outputs; (as opposed to step up to document fully from an integrated model)?

The second even more fascinating: Could there still be practices that set up their projects in a way that they end up with totally hands-off project people fronting the design team?

My clued-up BIM tongue twister

My definition of BIM on any building project is: create and maintain quality project Information throughout the process.

If predictive digital modelling existed there would be a smart bucket of project Information created at source, that buildings could be built from with no further quality control needed (on the documentation side at least);

This hypothetical model I call a ‘Clued up model’. (clued up = smart, verified)

Predictive modelling does not exist (can put ‘yet’ in here if you wish) – therefore we need to have modellers that are as close as possible to understanding and have the ability to deliver ‘clued up models’. They are called ‘clued up model modellers’.

These types of people are very hard to find especially in numbers that are needed on projects, so to make sure that less capable modellers perform as well as possible you need hands on modeller managers. You can refer to them as ‘Clued up model modeller managers’.

What’s with the tongue twister?

Well, if you line these up in a bit of an inverted, lopsided pyramid:

(Clued up) model modeller manager manager

(Clued up) model modeller manager

(Clued up) model modeller

(Clued up) model

Information

It is easy to see!

The further up the pyramid your ‘clued up’ resource sits, the bigger (and heavier) it becomes.

Cost and risks are closely related too, of course.

Would the real consultants for this project stand up, please?

A different type of redundancy from the one I described yesterday.

Not an unusual set-up, have seen it on numerous projects in recent times and in many countries.

There is a team of design consultants. Then, there is a team of client representative design consultants. And then another group for the contractor and not unusually, yet another for the PM company too.

So, a project could boast to have 4 design architects, 4 interior designers, 4 MEP engineers (or more if broken into further disciplines), 4 structural engineers, landscape designers and so on and so on...

Reminds me of an old well loved quiz, where the contestants had to guess which one of 3 claimants was the correct person. They could ask questions of all 3 and make a choice.

At the end, the host would ask the real XYZ to stand up...

If you were a building owner observing the delivery of your own building, would this give you extra confidence? Many hands make light work? Surely, so much expertise can be very beneficial? Or do you end up with the case of too many cooks spoil the broth?

Sadly, the latter seems to be the case, and not because too many parties try taking charge, more likely none wanting to carry the responsibility.

Would the real consultants for this project stand up, please?

BIM and Redundancy...

Redundancy in the BIM WORKFORCE?  Not quite!

AEC has had its share of redundancies recently – it is time to put the word to a more positive use. Turning it on its head to promote resilience in the industry.

A bit like IT. There, they talk hardware redundancy, when there’s a provision of multiple interchangeable components performing a single function, in order to provide backup as well as even-out the load each party needs managing.

In BIM when structuring resources apply a similar, parallel processing approach.

Rather than going down the track of having one person prepare/digitise/model information and another check it, get two people model the same information in the same time and compare the two models. This is extremely effective, as between the two of them it is highly likely that the integrity of the data will be good – or huge discrepancies will become apparent to ring early warning bells.

This may sounds totally counterproductive (and a waste of resources) but don’t get discouraged from exploring it in areas that require interpretation of documents prepared by others, like the Virtual Construction end of the BIM spectrum.

Single-or-multidimensional documenting of buildings could benefit from it too.

No need to employ this approach through the entire project – only at key-stages and as part of an overall strategy.

Will expand on this method in the near future.

Let’s be pedantic: Calling it ‘2D design’ is insulting!

There is a new tide of BIM promoters roaming the AEC.

With cocky attitude and high level of confidence they promote various forms of ‘Conveyor belt BIMs’, full of digi-jargon and flow charts.

Everything they offer seems to be ‘leading’, ‘state-of-the-art’ or at least ‘best practice’.

I would give them points for their enthusiasm and self-assurance were they not so far-off what happens in the real world.

Something specially bothers me in what they are doing to AEC:

They constantly refer to ‘2D design’.

I’ve seen charts having ‘2D design’ boxes for architects, structural and MEP engineers. I’ve also read workflow described as: ‘the model will be developed based on the consultants’ 2D design...’

Building elements are never 2D, they all have spatial characteristics (even signs, pipes, wires or ‘spot’ objects, like light-fittings).

Outputs may be 2D and should be referred to as ‘design documented using 2D projections’ (or similar).

Nowadays 2D drawings can come from hybrid models, real models or dressed up ones and should not label the ‘traditional’ documenters as 2D designers either. Guilty by choice of the tool?

Just because someone is not ‘publishing’ their designs through digital 3D models does not mean they are not designing in 3D+.

Does that mean designs that are fully resolved in one’s head (see Tesla’s quote in previous post) should be considered 0D (zero-dimensional) designs?

The BIM/FM paradox

There is a bit of a sad irony when it comes to Facilities Management and BIM.

Not challenging the concept of a digital, 3dimensional, data-rich model being useful for operational and maintenance once the building is completed.

Most building owners think similarly and are usually eager to have their digital building live on beyond construction through operations and FM.

Consequently many BIM promoters rely heavily on piggybacking FM, to sell preFM BIM.

There is a contradiction:

While selling ‘design and construction BIM’ is the easiest on the back of FM, in practice these models are of little use for FM.

Yes, it is possible to repurpose and modify the information created through construction stage to suit FM, however this is not necessary cheaper then say, creating an FM model from scratch just before the completion of construction.

Let me clarify this further: If BIM is performed PURELY to fulfil the FM requirements of the building owners, the currently promoted approaches may not be very suitable.

BIM and FM can complement each other and I’m all for ‘design and construction BIM modelling’ however, these need to be able to ‘stand on their OWN feet’.

I also wish to highlight the risk of selling one thing and delivering another.

The best chance for BIM in the future is in repeat clients, having BIM-conversant clients can also help.

In search of the BIM positive...

There is a beautiful building not far from where I live.

It is also part of a successful BIM project, or so I’ve been told.

I know very little about the history of the project and will not comment on how BIM assisted or hindered the creation of this wonderful object.

Am curious about MZ Partners being the project’s original designers. I once visited their offices. If you ever need a proof that flash offices are not needed to get high profile architectural projects, walk by their entry. They may have moved since. Doubt it, somehow.

I’ve kept Arups (the lead consultants of the building) in high esteem ever since I did a thorough study on the design and construction of the Sydney Opera House many years ago.

Have never worked with them directly but admire how they manage to coast on the outskirts of the global BIM-frenzy of the recent years with unblemished reputation.

And yes, they are excellent engineers too (I expect), I’m just a bit one-eyed and look at everything though BIM glasses.

Driving past the ‘disk’ daily, I marvel at the scale of it and the fact that it does not feel overpowering at all.

It does not feel like a building either, a striking object set in the desert.

A ‘Goldilocks’ type of object – everything about it feels ‘just right’.