One of the significant challenges currently facing structural engineering firms is educating and training staff in the production of building information modeling (BIM). Many firms are struggling to develop strategic plans and goals and institute a process for training their working professional staff while remaining profitable.

This article describes the successful implementation of a training and education strategy for the institution of the BIM process by our medium-sized firm — Buehler and Buehler Structural Engineers located in Sacramento, Calif. The strategy consists of creating and deploying a program developed by in-house staff with management oversight. The logistics used to deliver the program to approximately 50 staff in multiple offices with minimal disruption to productivity is described in detail.

Incorporation into the company’s strategic plan
Our company developed a strategic plan to make integrated project delivery (IPD) and BIM a cornerstone of future business development. We realized that our ability to truly deliver this product required a system of education and training of all our staff that would help them achieve the following:

• become proficient at producing 3D structural models and 2D construction documents,
• be capable of integrating their workflow with that of our clients and peers to a much higher degree, and
• create a culture within the firm that facilitates and rewards integration,

In developing this education and training program, the following challenges were apparent from the beginning:

• BIM software — in our case Autodesk’s Revit Structure — is a very powerful but complex program and is not simple to grasp;
• our staff includes individuals with a wide range of experience, education, and strengths;
• time is at an absolute premium and current project workflow cannot be compromised;
• our staff is located in two offices in different cities; and
• staff schedules are busy and complex.

Cornerstone of the education process
We based our implementation philosophy on the often-quoted Chinese proverb: Tell me and I’ll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I’ll understand.

We felt that true learning would occur when the participants (students) were using and exploring the software for productive work. We therefore settled on a strategy of delivering a course of instruction that included minimal direct lecturing (tell me), some demonstration (show me), and a strong focus on hands-on exercises (involve me).

Some complex BIM concepts and terms require description in a way that a beginning user can understand. Often, gaining an understanding of a new concept is much more straightforward when a peer provides the explanation as opposed to reading a guide or tutorial. We felt our staff would be most engaged if the course was delivered by a member of our professional staff who is intimately engaged in the company’s workflow, including production of models, drawings, and specifications. In our instance, the course instructor was an associate principal afforded a portion of his time to gain fluency in use of the software and to develop the course content. This person was able to convey — in terms familiar to our engineers — the basics of operating the software, provide an understanding of the company’s plan for BIM, and highlight the company’s BIM and drafting standards.

The virtual classroom
The challenges of time and distance led us to develop a series of classes to be “taken” by each participant at his/her office work-space via a virtual classroom that we created in-house. The instructor and students remained at their desks and utilized their own desktop computers to participate in the class over the company’s intranet. Both instructor and students had two computer monitors and a headset with a microphone. Using remote access software, students saw the instructor’s desktop on one screen while operating the BIM software on their own screens. Simultaneously, the instructor observed and manipulated each student’s desktop while operating the BIM software on his/her own screen for all the students to see.

These video connections, when combined with a separate audio chat room, completed the virtual classroom. The arrangement allowed the instructor and all students to speak and to be heard by the group in an interactive manner. We found this arrangement of the course made learning enjoyable and engaged the students’ desire to learn. Figure 1 shows a schematic layout of the intranet/Internet system we used to make the virtual classroom successful. The photograph at the bottom of the page shows one of the instructors in action.

Figure 1: The two office intranets, to which students and the instructor were separately connected, were linked through the internet to form the virtual classroom.

This arrangement had the following advantages: the ability to arrange classes quickly; the firm required very little hardware investment; the student’s learning environment was familiar (at his or her own desk); personal instructor involvement for each student was enabled; and the virtual classroom arrangement allowed instructors and students to be located in different offices.

The limitations were minimal: We imposed an eight-student maximum to ensure effective instructor/student interaction, and the quality of the network and Internet connection was a factor. Our Internet connection was a T-1 line, and each office operated a 1-Gigabyte wired LAN, which made the video choppy at times.

Of the many benefits of the virtual classroom, the ability for the instructors to be physically located in a different office from the student was essential.

Training eight students in two days
The course took two, full work days to complete using a single instructor with a class of eight students. At the end of the course, students had sufficient knowledge to complete simple 3D projects on their own and effectively work with experienced staff on larger projects. The course was repeated until the entire staff was trained.

Figure 2: this is a Bim 3d model used in the hands-on exercise.

The content of the two days can be selected in different ways depending on the type of work one’s office does. We chose to devote the first day to basic software use and 2D annotating and the second day to 3D modeling techniques. This allowed students to become comfortable with the software first, using familiar 2D concepts, and then explore more unfamiliar territory with some confidence. At the completion of the second day, students completed a full 3D model and a set of 2D construction documents from beginning to end in real world order. Figure 2 shows one of the 3D models used in the course.

Concepts introduced in the lecture sessions were strengthened by guidance provided by the instructor, while the students were allowed the flexibility to function independently. We wanted students to obtain sufficient experience with the many new concepts, in a relatively compressed time, so that when they began the first project on their own, they would not drift off in unprofitable ways or develop inefficient procedures. Additionally, we wanted them to be enthusiastic about wanting to continue enhancing their abilities. This process helped them develop a basic understanding of a considerable amount of material.

The instructor created a series of written course notes that explained, in detail, all the concepts covered. The instructor provided live instruction demonstrating each concept on a live screen while narrating a condensed version of the notes. This kept the sessions moving along and engaging while delivering detailed information.

At the conclusion of a lecture session the students were given time to “play” with the software. This free play time was open to whatever motivated the student, but the instructor was nearby to help those who were struggling. This time was brief, but long enough to allow the students to master the most basic skills on their own and free up time in the subsequent exercises for more complex work.

The hands-on exercises were essential parts of the sessions. They were custom crafted to be similar to the students’ daily work, simple enough to be completed quickly, and complex enough to require all the basic tools and commands being taught. Each exercise looked and felt like a real job so that the students learned not only how each command worked, but also how they can specifically use it to produce the work that they do every day.

Company transformation
After completing six sessions, the feedback from students was positive. The impact of the course on the company has been transformative. Staff found the sessions stimulating and quite interesting, albeit tiring. The process transformed a company of 50 professionals from a handful of BIM enthusiasts to a company-wide, exclusive BIM production staff in about one year. Compared with the firm’s unstructured conversion from hand drafting to CAD drafting in the 1990s, which required about four years, the time to complete this process was amazingly short.

This method of educating and training staff for effective and productive use of BIM processes is in contrast to having the staff trained by an outside company. A principal benefit of our procedure was that the staff was educated and trained quickly using examples that pertained directly to the company’s distinct products, standards, and strategies. We found that dedicating time for in-house staff to solve problems, explore opportunities, and provide continuing education proved to be invaluable in increasing the efficiency of our BIM production. It paved the way for realizing the benefits associated with BIM.

Larry Summerfield, S.E., is an associate principal with Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers in Sacramento, Calif. Melvin R. Ramey, Ph.D., P.E., is director of In-House Education at the same firm. Also, Ramey is an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California. They can be reached at 916-443-0303 or via e-mail at larrys@bbse.com or mrramey@ucdavis.edu, respectively.