AEC Architects/Engineers: What IS your MRT?

In technology, ‘response time’ is how long a system or functional unit takes to react to a given input. It gets similarly defined in medicine and military industries too.

What about the AEC?

There are traditional, contract-regulated response-requirements set for many actions needed to be performed by various AEC-project participants (comments, approvals, claims, RFIs etc.) – yet no form of an MRT comes up ever as something architects would boast about.

When questioned about it, they are often illusive and if very hard-pressed, they’d most likely emphasise the ‘quality’ aspect of their service over ‘reaction speed’.

In fact, it is viewed as a bit of a ‘dirty concept’ to expect instantaneous updating of all documents following a design change.

As recently as yesterday, a consultant looked at me genuinely surprised that I expected from him rapidly coordinated architectural and structural drawings following client initiated changes to numerous floor levels within the project.

I wonder if the same person gets to change  his travel arrangements on line these days or would stroll down to a travel agent who hand-fills  out a form and posts it to the airline company to request an amended date for the traveller? Three days or a week later…

How often does he transfer money wirelessly without considering how these types of needs were met not that long ago?

Does he ever ponder over in what way supermarket-chains adjust their products shelf prices daily?

Digital, ‘Model-based documentation’ is of course, the answer for those architects/engineers that DO want to improve their ‘response-time’ without compromising on quality or taking on additional risks.

Well informed and resourceful practitioners are those that can also differentiate between fragmented 2D (CAD) drawing processes, over-constrained and hard to manage modelling approaches and flexible, alert, proactive-yet reactive methodologies.

In the current AEC markets there is no place for sluggish, lethargic players.

It is time for all consultants to lift their game and improve on their MRT!

 

BIMocrisy: forgive me; I have no patience to tolerate it at this level any more.

How on earth can an architectural company claim any type of BIM-enablement when they can’t get their 2D areas right?

Let’s not name names.

It could happen to anyone, really.

Any old architectural firm could be asked to prepare a quick study of possible future space-uses in a highly complex job for one of the world’s most prestigious clients and to get it wrong.

After all, it is ‘just’ numbers we are talking about.

The timeframe was tight, they did their best.

They copied ‘areas’ as numbers over numerous floors into a spread-sheet without checking them and presented it to the client. Twice.

This is the same company that is regularly in attendance at BIM conferences and I can quote one of them personally speaking as a VIP guest, from such an event last year:

“Harnessing and leveraging innovative tools, has enabled our global studio to lead the design industry in producing cutting-edge solutions that are resulting in a new type of architectural engagement”…

The same esteemed professional has been quoted somewhere else too: ….” He spoke about Zero Emissions Design (ZERO-E) and how the next generation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and parametrics integration is being applied to this leading research project …”

Note, we aren’t talking  3D zones or intelligent objects of any complexity!

Simple, 2D fills, sorted by space-categories.

Could someone please introduce them to the idea of integrated schedules?

And keep them out of BIM until they do learn to use them?

(pictures here were created for illustration of my point and done in the matter of seconds - all changes to the fills were instantly reflected on the spreadsheets too!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=18350

The story of the truck that got stuck…

(and three unrelated North-point incidents)

My husband’s old Teachers College building got into the news a couple of days ago.

The 140-year-old building was badly damaged in the Christchurch earth-quakes and is likely to be pulled down.
The former institution is made up of 31 individual apartments, though his fond memories of learning (from the 1970s) are tempered by the cold designed into the building.

The design came from the North Hemisphere, for a South Hemisphere location, making the corridors with their sunny aspect much more enjoyable than the classrooms.

The old buildings to the north of Cranmer Square were pretty; they used to be known as the Normal School and the Teachers College. Yet in their education period, being inside was less lovely. A corridor on the east side meant two lines of stone blocked the sun from reaching the classrooms till after everyone had taken their days’ worth of cold hard facts. However, the residential makeover would have brought people into sunny rooms at the end of a day’s work and this is the loss being lamented.

Now, you might think that omissions like these from a couple of centuries ago are no longer happening.

By chance, I had been staring at a North Point on a drawing today when the thought came, that something was wrong with it. –

A very pretty graphics (attached), yet wrong for the location somewhere in the Gulf.

The symbol would be appropriate for places south of the equator.

It shows the sun rising in the east and taking a northern track across the sky, before setting in the west. The sun is on the meridian at midday, north of the EW line.

Pondering this little product of a likely ‘copy-and-paste’ exercise I thought it would be interesting to see if the other ‘North points’ within the same project exposed any further anomalies.

I mean, the siting of the place is something everyone should get right?

Oh, there was a little beauty waiting to be discovered.
Architectural and structural plans for the building, each showing the same type
(this time unadorned) North point.
Ecept, they were rotated by 180 degrees from each other.

(attached picture; another reference I checked: the set-out grids matched)

Not that anyone will get overly worried about the competency of the consultants we are employing  on this project (as the main contractor).

We will not be splitting hairs with them on minor issues, like the direction North has on the project.

Or to rephrase this, the spatial orientation the building will have.
We have much bigger fish to fry! If the sun does not rise at the side you expect it, only the sun can be blamed for that.
Why is it so hard to get the basics right in this industry?

To bookend the first story coming from New Zealand, here is the one about the truck:

A couple of days ago a disqualified truck driver caused the closure of the Paekakariki Hill Road (a bit north from Wellington, NZ) after his truck got wedged under a pine tree.

GPS instructions directed the driver onto the road, which police said was unsuitable for the 20-metre-long truck.
If you’ve ever driven on that road, you’d be surprised that someone would actually attempt to get a large truck up the hill, still we often take electronic gadgets as correct even when what they say makes no sense.

How does this last story relate to the first three?
Very loosely, really, all hinting somehow to ‘blind leading the blind’ phenomena and relevant to navigational issues.
And professional services...
and competent AEC design consultants.

Check your North Points!

Future-proofing one’s career through BIM

As my middle daughter is contemplating her future career-options and is seriously leaning towards architectural studies, I prepare my list of topics she must also absorb too, to ‘future-proof her career’.

One: construction law; Two: project management; Three: BIM.

To prove to her how good BIM as a personal investment has been for mummy, I google ‘BIM Qatar’ for jobs, expecting that there will be hundreds on offer at the moment.

Cant’ be any other way, considering there is at least one, 10 billion US$-sized project under way there with a full BIM requirement mandated on it.

Let’s not go into too many details on why I would classify it as a ‘full BIM’ project  – let’s just agree that the fact of the guiding standard being BS 1192 makes it a pretty ambitious BIM-undertaking.

So, sections of this project are currently under tender-stage, 18 consortia bidding for various parts of the cake.

To see how truly global they make this tender, refer to the picture attached.

Imagine each of these consortia consisting of at least 3 companies.

Then, consider, that being a D&C bid, most of them would drag in at least 1, but most likely more consultant-firms, bringing the number of sub-companies to at least 18 x 4 = 72;

According to my simple logic this means that, there are 72 large, most likely multinational companies bidding for a highly ambitious BIM project within the region at the moment, with the view of proceeding with it within the next 3-6 months.

There must be hundreds of ‘demanding BIM jobs’ on offer on the market at the moment!

Before anyone gets over-excited about me leaking confidential information, I declare that all the data I’ve used for this little post is ‘public knowledge’ (i.e. freely available on the internet);

Apart from my daughter’s career plans, I guess.

Note to QRail: Get in touch with the designers of Thomas the Tank Engine…*

…before you start building your real, sophisticated rail-system!

I got into trouble in the past for suggesting large AEC organizations should consider customizing gaming programs to fulfill their BIM needs ahead of settling down to the ‘mainstream’ BIM solutions on offer.

Similarly, this time, sharing the idea that a large AEC client should look at a toy manufacturer for clues on how to make a real-railway work – could be viewed as something said in a ‘flippant way’.

Far from it.

Spend some time observing professional engineering teams design complex AEC systems (like a railway) ‘from scratch’ and you’ll come to the same conclusion.

Something is just not quite right there!

Is it the fragmented process, the lack of overview, that bothers me?

The archaic way of documenting they use for the design process, the inability to bring flexibility in-at a higher level not seen before?

Them ignoring economies of scale, possible-hidden modularity and surface-level customization?

Or is it just the way these guys sit around meeting tables for hours, with one eye always on their latest-model phone?

They tend to pore over zillion-paged reports…create new ones and mark up one-another’s…

Reports!

Why not make a scale-model of their proposal, instead?

Plastic, wooden or digital, any of them will do.

Doha has made a good start by supporting** Vicon in their competition to digitize the city.

Why not make the bold step towards a truly-smartly designed, model-based transport system?

* Thomas & Friends is TM of Gullane (Thomas)

**or at least not opposing it, I’m not part of the in-crowed there to know the details – looks like a good idea, regardless! Check it out:

http://www.bimuserday.com/doha-3d/

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.