Alain Waha- Global BIM strategist at Buro Happold

Many large construction companies are currently on a digital journey of transformation with their operation methods. Almost all have invested in legacy BIM software applications such as common data environments, project programme simulation software and model quality checking tools i.e Autodesk Navisworks, Vault, and CRM systems such as UnionSquare Workspace. The UK government has said that in order to be considered for publically funded projects, construction companies must have achieved level 2 BIM by 2016, but what are the government achieving through driving the adoption of BIM?

Known implications of using BIM on a project include the creation of transparency; It implies a systemised trackable account of all activity, logging information into databases. The client and contractor are being told to make as much value from the use of available data as possible, but how? They are not skilled or trained to think in the specific way required, and there are no predefined solutions which tick the “gaining value from BIM” box. Too many people see BIM as a 3D model with a series of underlying file systems of which persons can be held accountable, as can be described by the existing project contracting model.

The psychological impact of watching previous technologies come and go, whilst being promised value propositions that failed to succeed, has somewhat blemished people’s perspectives on technology. However, despite people’s skepticism, BIM is here to stay. Loosely coupled technologies provide existing processes with a modularity and control over tasks which, up until now, have been unachievable. The increased control is made possible by underlying algorithms adding value for both the client and end user. Tedious tasks are being automated and the user is hence free to be creative and focus more specifically when faced with a set problem. The project is more tightly monitored, the spend is accounted for and, there is no longer any room for risk or lost earnings on the bottom line. Through the use of the same set of common tools, project offerings from companies are falling in to equilibrium.

The government are aware of the cost benefits of the new transparent nature of the systems they are imposing, as they strive for maximum value for the taxpayer. Maybe this is why the government is having such a tough time engaging the supply chain in their BIM fiasco, and in hindsight it may be a no-brainer for the majority of the supply chain to avoid BIM. From a contractor’s point of view, it may be a good idea to keep it that way.

Traditional BIM systems do not offer any major value to contracting companies that currently adopt it. They can’t sell it on explicitly, and clients are beginning to observe that it is gradually becoming the new standard. “BIM” scores companies brownie points amongst peers and can increase market reputation. BIM requires training, expensive software, expensive hardware, expensive support teams and it is all paid for by the contractor — from their bottom line profit.

The features offered by existing software solutions do not offer as much value as they could. Take Clash detection for instance. It is the responsibility of the design team to carry out tests on BIM models for QA purposes. Model coordination through an accountable system can replace the need to send drawings by traditional means, but there is no support for true collaboration here. It seems to be an afterthought in most design based projects. If you think of clash as a QA mechanism on the virtual building model, why carry it out after the design has been completed? No other manufacturing/ engineering related industry waits until the product design is complete to carry out QA. Common sense says that it should be an integral part of the design process.

Even if the small features can be thought of as handy little tools on a project, they exist in silos, both in terms of software and in the minds of those using the tool. Data is created that has value to one user but may not offer complete value to all stakeholders involved in a project. This is not to say, if handled correctly that it would be. Data is everywhere, the question is, which data is valuable and why? What mechanisms can we put in place to leverage it?

Each year, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep track of all these little tools, and subsequently these tedious tasks are taking one step further in writing out the level of human interaction in the process. If these methods of traditional task resolution are the norm, why not have all of them in one place and treated like a ‘digital toolbox’. Many large construction companies and consultancies are employing their own versions of this concept, but fundamentally it all revolves around keeping data accessible for when it is needed, in order to leverage it when possible. Have you ever tried to find qualitative project data in a conventional tool landscape? i.e ERP management system such as workspace? If you want data from a source, it usually involves routing through documents or even making contact with somebody to find out the location of the specific piece(s) of data required, which is ultimately time consuming and costly. What if less time was spent doing this — in other words, your digital toolbox contained a query tool which allowed the search of all data in the project and within seconds, brought to your fingertips that which you seeked, as opposed to the minutes or even hours of searching before you finally retrieve the data required. This added value is just one example of how application use can be made possible through emerging web services, related technologies and infrastructure. Amongst other things, we could set up reminders on a project, a task notification system and build business focused tools that actually benefits your company’s key values.

Many large construction companies have taken the time to build up their legacy systems with support teams, and soon to be their bolted on BIM tools, only to find the landscape is quickly changing beneath their feet. To adopt a completely new replacement system would be too much too soon, but the change is imminent. It is a crucial time for large companies to notice that this technology progress is a major threat to them should they choose not to adopt. Competition is finding new ways to achieve value from the masses of data available to them and, in my opinion, the extent of automation of the build process has potential to reach 100%.

Leaving behind these outdated legacy systems and software could be make or break for a large construction company. Certainly, the more agile companies, which are focusing on the value added being delivered by these systems, will bring competitive advantage in a field where people are still getting to grips with the so-called benefits of BIM level 2. Before large companies continue to pour money into existing software solutions and current BIM solutions from third party providers, I would just like to pose the question, why are you buying into BIM and what big problem is it solving for you?