Building Information Modeling: Status and concerns

How will building information modeling (BIM) change the way the AEC industry operates currently? How will the industry need to change to accommodate BIM? What are some of the challenges faced by the industry as it progresses toward BIM adoption? Zweig White—a business information consulting firm that focuses on the A/E industry and the publisher of Structural Engineer—organized a roundtable discussion in Charlotte, N.C., on May 23 to explore these questions.

I hosted the event, which included several practicing structural engineers, an architect, as well as a number of software technology experts. The group shared its understanding of the status of BIM advancement within the industry; additionally we discussed some concerns that arise from BIM adoption.

> STATUS

GOUPIL: As the terminology of BIM starts to permeate the industry, I have found that it can be defined in different ways. The first topic I would like to discuss is simply the definition of BIM.

KFOURI: I think that what makes BIM a little bit different than just a 3-D model is the role that it plays in the whole lifecycle of the design process.

BIM is able to capture all of the design and construction information in one source. Ideally, you are able to use the same data for your analysis, for documentation, and during construction without running the risk of duplicating information or having to manually synchronize all of that data. Structural engineers are a natural fit for the process since they already understand 3-D models.

FITZPATRICK: I think of BIM as more of a whole collaborative process with the architect, mechanical engineer, and others. It is more effort than just the structural engineer. Also, it involves interference detection and other processes to help get a building built without too many change orders.

GOUPIL: So primarily a mechanism for collaboration, the process, if you will, is more than just a tool.

KFOURI: The word process is important because it’s more than just a single tool, it’s a way of everyone working together. BIM in isolation is irrelevant.

It’s only powerful when it’s part of the whole process.

DOCOUS: I would agree with that.

I would say BIM is an attitude. First and foremost is the collaborative nature that it allows for all the disciplines to work together. To answer your first question, Jennifer, I think BIM is the emerging technology that will transform the AEC industry. It’s just emerging, that’s why people haven’t heard of it. People are busy in their day-to-day activities, designing projects and managing their firms. But I think once they get wind of BIM and its benefits, that adoption is going to go very quickly. A lot faster than CAD ever was.

OEHMCKE: About a year ago, we organized an in-house group to evaluate BIM.We had managers, engineers, and drafters together in the group.Through our research, we were able to learn enough to ask questions of our clients about their involvement in BIM.Our firm does only structural consulting and 95 percent of the time we work for architects. It was important to us to find out where our clients were in the BIM process.What we learned was surprising. It really didn’t make any difference what size the firm was or what kind of work they did. Some are just diving into it—they’ve gone 100 percent to BIM.Others are just not the least bit interested in getting started right now. They want to wait and see where it develops and goes. There’s an incredible spectrum.

FITZPATRICK: And not related to firm size? OEHMCKE: No, it wasn’t at all.

KFOURI: We have found the same sort of thing. There are a lot of companies that just jumped in with both feet, and there are others that don’t want anything to do with [it]. And still others are doing pilot projects.

FITZPATRICK: Who do you think is going to be the driver? The owner? The contractor? The architect? Not the engineer.

DOCOUS: I think ultimately that the owners are in the best position to demand what they want. But even they are not aware of what BIM is.When they start to see the return it has for them, then they will start asking. I think the architects are out there now adopting it because it allows us a greater range of flexibility to explore a wider range of design options early on in the design stage with greater accuracy than before.

If you think about it, BIM is really and truly a paradigm shift in terms of how we are going to do projects in the future.When CAD came along, it mechanized and automated drafting, but really it was just a different tool to perform the same task.

Instead of a pen and a T-square and a triangle, we just went to a mouse and binary bits of information. BIM allows architects and engineers to think in three dimensions and put things together relationally.

When people realize that, then they’ll get on the wagon and they’ll get on quickly. If they’re not quick to get on this, then they’re going to miss out on opportunities.

GUSTAFSON: I think there was inefficiency perceived, which probably existed, when going from drafting to CAD back in the 1980s.There might be a kind of identity crisis with BIM right now. Some of the structural engineering firms we talk to are waiting for BIM 2.0, if you will, where the technology and process are more developed, especially with downstream integration.

GOUPIL: I wanted to revisit the question of drivers. Has anyone been feeling a push from the contracting side? Has anyone experienced BIM while working with the contractor? FITZPATRICK: I wonder if they know what to do with BIM yet. What does the contractor do with it?

DOCOUS: Well, they’re adding the fourth dimension to it. They are hiring graduates of our engineering and architectural programs. And, if we supply them with a set of construction drawings, they’re building their own BIM models so that they can simulate how they would stage the construction. And, you know, we were talking earlier about whether the owners will drive this. I think that the contractors are going to give owners a run for the money, because they realize that it helps them make their construction process more efficient.

KFOURI: Maybe there is another answer to the question of who’s going to be leading the effort. I wonder if it’s more of a team of people. So, say, an architect partners with a structural engineering firm, a construction firm, and a fabricator. When we talk about the owner driving BIM, I think it’s because we figure the guy with the biggest pocketbook can do it. But, you have to figure out a team that can work very efficiently together. An owner couldn’t force them to work together effectively. They need to proactively do that, so perhaps it may be partnerships that drive the effort.

OEHMCKE: Yes, I think you’ve hit it on the head there. The reason that the automotive industry, the airline industry and the boat-building industry are so efficient is that everybody is under the same tent. They can go from the genesis of the design all the way through construction and beyond and they’re able to utilize all of the knowledge created in the model throughout the whole process— it is what we’re trying to do with BIM. I think you have to have collaborations; you have to have networks of people.

> CONCERNS

HERRON: Are we picking up more liability?

KFOURI: The legal structure obviously needs to change, because the legal structure right now is predicated on a paper-based process. Currently, the way you signal that you’re done with your part and your legal responsibilities are over is that you issue a set of drawings.

Then you say that whatever is in the drawing is correct and that’s what I’m responsible for. However you can’t be sure that your drawing is completely accurate.

HERRON: What is on that drawing is only my structural information, however, and I have a higher level of confidence that I’ve got that part right.

KFOURI: With the current process, however, an engineering office is actually developing at least two models on any project. They’ve got the drawings, which aren’t really models but an unsynchronized, inaccurate representation of the model. Then they have the analytical model, which is another unsynchronized, inaccurate representation of the actual physical building because it’s been idealized and simplified for analysis, which is valid. Engineering offices are duplicating a lot of work by creating the same information in slightly different formats for different tasks. BIM can change that by creating all of the information in one location.

HERRON: Well, how long will it take for a structural engineer to design the building using the BIM method versus our current method? How many more hours is that going to add to our design times and drawing times? Let me put you on the spot, Brian, how compatible is this technology with your current products? We don’t want to be taking steps backwards.

QUINN: You won’t be taking steps backwards. We’re certainly on the forefront of linking our engineering analysis tools in with the different BIM platforms that are available such as, of course, Bentley Structural, but also the Revit platform.Where we go first comes from demand from our users. As we start hearing more demand, we continue to do more with the software.

FITZPATRICK: Let’s rewind for a little bit here. One of the conversations earlier concluded that BIM is a good thing, and that we’re all going to go forward with BIM. But, who’s going to do the modeling? You’ve got the senior guys that have the experience of knowing how to put a building together, but maybe the technological leap is beyond their capabilities. And the younger staff can pick up technology in a heartbeat, but they don’t have the experience to put the building together. So you’re going to get a model that either doesn’t work at all, or isn’t that accurate.

OEHMCKE: As you’ve said, we have engineers that are skilled analysis model builders and we have CAD technicians that are very capable of putting out a very good drafting product. But how do you merge those two together? It’s not practical in a consulting firm to have one person who can "do it all." The engineer and drafter need to create a workflow that will allow them to both utilize the same 3-D model for their needs.

GUSTAFSON: I think there’s going to be an emergent sub-consultant, perhaps a structural modeler or a BIM modeler.

DOCOUS: In our office we have both disciplines: structural engineering and architecture. And, we are creating "super" architects.What I mean by that is that our office—quite some time ago—dispensed with architectural drafts people. We have architects who are adept at designing or documenting or researching and they are expected to do all of these aspects, including model.

Our structural department, though, is setup as I’m sure yours are: the engineers do the analysis and the drafters create the drawings.Our intent is for the engineers to become proficient modelers.

They’ll work on the model and then from the model the drafters will extract the 2-D drawings.

QUINN: I think it’s important that the tools available allow people to work in whatever work flow practices are best for them. For some of you that may be starting in the structural analysis model first, because your people are familiar with it. And in other situations it could be more effective to begin in your BIM application.We’re very much in favor of having a basically open-platform system so that you can choose the way you work to be most efficient.

HERRON: Our hesitation to jump on board with BIM is the compatibility issue. I don’t want to spend three hours debugging something that I wouldn’t have had to deal with doing it my conventional ways. Also, the liability issue. Everybody involved has to really accept this as a new way of thinking; they need to be on board. I am not sure, yet, how we handle that problem short of every project going to design-build.

> CONCLUSION

QUINN: BIM will allow us to improve the quality of what we do as structural engineers. The ability to deliver the information with fewer chances of error is powerful, but I think team collaboration is a key part of BIM.

If all you’re going to do is e-mail the model to somebody and you’re not going to get on the phone and talk a little bit about what to expect in it, there’s still no team. Hopefully, BIM allows us to pull teams together.

FITZPATRICK: I think BIM’s going to happen. I think it will happen sooner for the larger projects—particularly where the fees would be larger and you can absorb some of the startup cost associated with it. But, I think it’s going to be awhile before it makes its way down to the residential and small-retail level. Some projects seem particularly suitable; I don’t know that you would build a hospital today without BIM.

GUSTAFSON: I see the building information model paradigm really helping companies that want to differentiate themselves and take on a different business model.

DOCOUS: As I said before, BIM is an attitude. Look at BIM from the standpoint of how it will help your process, your effort to be innovative, and your quality. Start looking at it now, and get into it, because firms like mine are going to be expecting it down the road.

It’s a whole new game and you’ve got to get into the game. The fundamental reason why my firm is doing this is because we don’t want to be marginalized.

We love doing design and we just know that without BIM, the opportunities to do that are just going to dwindle quickly.

OEHMCKE: As a structural consultant I think it’s important for us to support our architectural clients and, as I said earlier, there’s a wide spectrum of how they’re implementing BIM. I don’t think it’s an all-or-nothing deal. We need to be able to come in and support our clients at whatever level is expected.

There’s a lot of optimism out there from what we’ve learned from our architectural clients.

KFOURI: I think it’s a really bright, very exciting future for us and it may be a great opportunity for the building industry to start catching up to some other industries that have been extremely efficient, such as the automobile and airline industry. Just about every industry within the United States, other than farming, has increased its productivity about two-fold in the past 30 years, yet the building industry has managed to go down to about 0.8 percent of what it used to be 30 years ago.We’ve got some work ahead of us.