BIM: Driving internal change
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on September 2014]
At the same time as we engage with the supply chain we should commence the internal change process. Perhaps a more difficult task that that of engaging with the supply chain.
Traditional Change Management wisdom tends to indicate a ten year programme driven from the very top of the organisation, with vigour and commitment. A clear goal and manageable steps to it equate to a transition plan that can be monitored, reported upon, and tweaked along the way as necessary.
Ah, such luxury.
If we start with the premise that BIM will impact all areas of an organisation and that cultural change is required to acquire the appropriate collaborative behaviours across the business we will not be far of the mark. We have the beginning of a concept of scale. Any area that is not impacted, and that will not be many, has been at least considered. The equivalent of a right side failure.
It would appear therefore that we are embarking on a quest to change the whole organisation.
As if you had not guessed, this is where the problems start.
Solution mode
Let us jump straight into solution mode. Is that not what we do for all our problems? We know what the problem is, we know what we want to achieve, a bit of gap analysis, and we have a solution. Then apply some people skills and we have a plan. Or do we?
BIM is not a defined entity. It is still being shaped and matured. At time of writing PAS1192-3 has recently been published. BIM is not just a process to be implemented. Given that I have previously stated than BIM is predominantly about people, treating BIM as an entity to be switched on or a process to be rolled out and adopted does not appear to be the road to success.
In fact, I would go further and suggest that that method would almost enviably lead to failure. The result may be a particular flavour of BIM adoption, but it will not leverage the maximum benefits.
BIM is a combination of technology, process, codification, and people. Separate these as workstreams of the whole BIM implementation. Each needs careful attention as they are all interdependent. The technology is probably seen as the most exciting, most interesting one to tackle first. Adopt the new technology that everyone is talking about first and the rest will follow.
Unfortunately, all too often this is shown to be not the case. People don’t naturally follow technology in a work environment.
Given that a change in behaviour, to one of collaboration is part of the BIM implementation goals, it appears to be at least a little disingenuous to define and create the technology, process, or codification solution without first engaging with the stakeholders to establish what those solutions look like.
This is further exasperated by the current lack of a mature BIM concept. It is something of a moving target which in turn makes having a fixed solution somewhat futile. BIM is still developing therefore the solution must also develop and change. To have a workforce that can accept this concept of change requires that they are sympathetic, understanding, and supportive of the cultural change embodied in BIM implementation.
The normal steps in cultural change management don’t quite work in this scenario. This is more a case of organic growth. A journey to be experienced and enjoyed.
Get the people with you and travel the journey together to leverage the maximum benefits out of your investment in BIM. Having the staff with you is more important than engaging with the supply chain.
Drive internally or get help
There is a lot of discussion about driving BIM implementation internally, with home grown enthusiasts, or to seek external expert help. The problem with the former is what are the enthusiasts doing now and who will do that whilst they are tasked with changing the world, or will that just be a bolt on to their current role? BIM is not just CAD on steroids. It is not just a change in technology or process. If you have spare cultural change managers within your organisation, ask yourself are you changing too much, too frequently.
In a recent BIM Experts Group LinkedIn discussion entitled ‘What is the easiest/softest way for changes for Organization to adopt BIM?’ I wrote;-
‘ I believe that to get the greatest benefit you need to hire two people, or one person with two skill sets. The first to deal with the technical elements of BIM implementation and the second with the cultural change. They are both transient positions and are therefore best as externals. There are too many political considerations to attempt same from within. However, part of the brief should be to inform and educate the existing workforce thereby enabling them to carry on with subsequent projects, with enriched and engaged staff, to reap the rewards of the previous investment. I agree with the concept of starting with a well formed medium sized project that is sufficiently large to carry the burden of the learning curve.’
Irrespective of me potentially being that help, and therefore have a vested interest, the dynamics of most organisations, are such that good externals will provide a better chance of success.
Sphere of influence
The ripple widens, the awareness campaign gathers momentum. The strategy is for progressive implementation;
- Awareness
- Inform
- Engage
- Educate
- Enable
The ripple explained in deals with different groups. It is therefore logical that different groups within the ripple will be at different stages of progressive implementation. The centre of the ripple, which may be in the educate stage, still needs stoking, whilst the outer parts of the ripple are still in the awareness stage.
When this stage is reached the sphere of influence can be seen as growing exponentially. People talk to each other, awareness spreads. People go to meetings and mention or compare notes on BIM. The grapevine should not be underestimated as an effective communication vehicle.
Instead of having to push to get a slot to present BIM, requests are made. This is all part of the communications strategy.
At an early stage a BIM Steering Group was set up. Time progresses, and the ripple widens, the steering group needs to widen. There comes a point where the steering group needs review and rationalisation. The members should ideally be selected from all of the major stakeholder groups, across the whole life cycle of the asset, not just the intervention. The group started small with keen enthusiasts. Now it is at the limit in terms of size to be a steering group at all. Compare the steering on a RIB to that of a super tanker. You must maintain the enthusiasm though. The steering group starts to grow in reputation. People now request that other people are incorporated into the steering group.
Add the ripple, the progressive implementation, and the growth in the steering group; it is very evident that the sphere of influence has multiplied several fold. The sphere of influence is an important part of the cultural change mechanism. Using push pull to create change needs to be seen to have influence to gain the credence necessary to implement the desired change.
The top down method, normally associated with cultural change management remains the preferred method with the greatest probability of success.
The BIM implementation programme is beginning to ‘have legs’
The BIM implementation programme is beginning to ‘have legs’. The backbone of the technical solution has to be established to enable the cultural change to progress. The people at the forefront of the drive must be kept engaged and driving forward. At this point you will enter uncharted territory. The codification is not yet devised. The technical solution is not fully formed due to both technical and people issues. The process change requirements are not yet known as stakeholder engagement is yet to be complete. The wider community is entering the awareness phase and a newsletter is produced and circulated to aid that process.
You are ready to start
Start to establish what all of the stakeholders have to offer and what they would like. Ah, a problem already, they don’t know what is on the menu, so how can they chose? Have some workshops asking what they would like if all their Christmases had come at once, and anything was possible. Then carry out the gap analysis, followed by the three horizons. That gives you a starting point of what the stakeholders want, categorised into ‘now’,’ near future’, and ‘far future’ plus some almost inevitably, ‘never’. Even the ‘never’ could change in the future to be, that data is so easy to obtain and manage.
Then it’s a case of data meets people. Create the process around the people and the data, always remembering that you are striving towards a collaborative environment. Link this to the Supply Chain engagement drive, and you have reached the start line. Don’t forget that you don’t yet know what race you are in or what the rules are. You have to find those out, collaboratively, in the future. It is an organic process that will continue to change and grow as the industry changes and adapts. The process will not be static for some considerable time to come.
Bang! (Starting gun)