The thoughts of Ivan the ?
Or
The collective thoughts of Ivan the Terrible, the Great, or somewhere inbetween.
Published, posted, comments, correspondence, or just here, a collection of articles.
BIM
BIM, Building Information Modelling or Management, had the potential to be transformational within the Construction Industry, with impact on general society. I became involved and tried to add to the conversation and the rate of change, eventually becoming a BIM Strategist. I sat on a number of BIM committees, including the construction wide overarching direction setting group. I was also subject to a number of Non-Disclosure Agreements, NDA, which mean I can not even mention the entities, let alone my involvement.
BIM; What is it? What can it become?
BIM; What is it? What can it become?
[Posted in LinkedIn on June 6, 2016]
A simple introduction - Part 1
A friend came up to me at work the other day, and said, "Hi Mr BIM, What is BIM?"
Let's take a straightforward, non technical, non PAS approach to answering that question, in a simple mind-dump style.
It is space for a RHS steel column. That column progressively becomes 305x305mm as the design progresses, and then has flanges at each end. The column gains surface treatment, fire retardant, and cosmetic cladding. The flanges then gain bolt holes, M20 bolts, washers, and nuts. All within the original space allocated. Each time the 3D object is pulled from a library full of objects at the appropriate level of detail. LOD. Design progresses though the digital plan of work from bright idea, to concept, to detailed design, and then on to construction, as-builds and finally into asset management.
The column is an asset, as are each of the bolts, and each of the nuts. Even the humble washer is an asset, with its own asset number. It is part of a system. The nut bolt and washers assembly are part of the system that joins two adjacent objects together. The column is another part of the system. The function of the column could be described as being the transfer of loads. The purpose could generally be described as to hold up the ceiling and all the other things above the top of the column. In certain parts of London, where the water table is rising it could be that it is pulling downward, stopping the structure floating. Either way it is transferring load, as part of a system.
As it is pulled into the design from the library it should be given a code. That code should be a matrix code which contains information about the object, the location, the system, the function, and the assets that constitute the object.
Is that all there is to BIM?
Is that all there is to BIM? Well, in a word, no.
When you pull that object from the library it will come with some predefined metadata. The column is RHS, rectangular hollow section, so it will have the dimensions of the section including the wall thickness and corner curvature profile. It could have the bending moment, elasticity, and type of steel. It will have the weight per metre. Knowing the type of steel will provide information about the amount of imbedded carbon in the material. Specifying the ratio of new to recycled steel will provide information about the imbedded carbon in the manufacturing process. We can start to measure carbon content. We will have to wait until later in the process to add another element of metadata, where in the world the steel is manufactured and how it is transported to the construction site. The metadata can hold all the core data about the object. Links attached to the object can include COSHH data, maintenance information, inspection regime, and demolition/recycling facts. Design, construction, operation, replacement, and decommissioning risks and hazards can also be attached. This is one object in a BIM Model with the three elements, documentation, non-graphical information and graphical information, all in a digital interconnected form. Further objects are dragged from the object library and connected to the same system until it becomes the model of the structural steel frame of a building, either proposed or existing.
With all of the digital data being integrated and intelligent it is a simple process to change something.
All of the objects together in the 3D model can be visualised and presented to stakeholders in various mediums ranging from simple isometric views for a exhibition or consultation, to a rotating 3D screen view, perhaps with walk through, on to a fully immersive augmented reality using specialist goggles. Early days yet, as only at steel frame stage.
The model has been transferred to the client from the structural designer within the common data environment. The shared digital space which is the single source of truth for all of the collaborating parties across the whole spectrum of the supply chain. The client decides that he wants to increase the floor to ceiling height of the reception area by 50% more. Easy, select the relevant columns and stretch them. All the associated dimensions change and all of the connection and connected elements move with it. The new design is reanalysed. Then, because the BIM objects have 4D and 5D elements attached to them, all at appropriate levels of estimation based on the LOD, the client can instantly be advised of the cost and time implications of his decisions. The client can then make an informed decision to proceed with the change, revert to the previous, or try something different. Information based decision making. The concept of designing to a predetermined budget becomes a reality.
One system is in place, generally created within one discipline. Now we can start with the other systems.
However, let us return to space before we go there. Earlier we mentioned the space for the column. Understanding space is really important. After all, it is space that you are creating when you design a building. Space for desks, homes, or machinery. If it is not a building but a railway tunnel, it is space for a train. Not just a static train but one travelling at speed, with the inherent wobbling from side to side, and bouncing up and down on the suspension. The kinematic envelope. That is just one space in the tunnel. Add the space for the pantograph and overhead line equipment (OHLE). As recently done in the 175 year old Box Tunnel. Line speed of 125mph, but not enough space to add electrification without lowering the invert of the tunnel and thereby the track. Back to the design of the tunnel. Space is required for linear systems such as track, drainage, and cables and discrete items such as signs and signals. All of these space allocations define the internal diameter of the tunnel. Add the wall thickness based on the geology and loadings, and you have the diameter of the TBM. Going back to a building, you define the amount of space you require, the use of that space, and the quality of the building and finishes. The building is merely a facilitator of the space required. Infrastructure is the same, irrespective of whether the space is for cars, trains, water, or gas. Having understood that it is much easier to understand the importance of starting your initial BIM model with spaces, sometimes called volumes.
Now back to the structural frame. The structural frame is outlined to create the space required. That does not mean that it is fixed and unchangeable. All the other systems collaborate to define their space requirements. Notice that disciplines are being generally avoided as this just perpetuates the problematical concept of silos. Silos must be broken down to facilitate collaboration. BIM at this stage requires a space manager. A controller of all the spaces and the arbiter of the disputes, sorry, discussions about one space encroaching on another. The space allocation for the air conditioning duct has to include room to fix it and to maintain and replace it. The design develops and the duct size has to increase. This impacts upon adjacent spaces. The space manager resolves the reallocation in collaboration with all of the relevant stakeholders, including the structural frame if necessary. Again the time and cost consequences can be considered as part of the resolution. Numerous 'what-if' scenarios can be run to optimise the decision. Each object, including the column has to fit in its allocated space which ultimately provides the required free space. Each system is developed within the space for that system. Now comes the fun time. Joining all of the system designs together to form a federated model. All of the previous provides clash avoidance, but still run the clash detection just to check.
Surveying is at the beginning of the process
Is that the extent of BIM? No, that is just the beginning.
We have forgotten surveying. Well, is that is excusable, as it is quite common? No, it is not. Surveying is at the beginning of the process. Unless, you are a retail tin shed provider, where the design is the same irrespective of the site. Or perhaps a housing developer where you have a set number of standard designs, including of course some for so called affordable housing.
Sorry, time for the interlude. A developer has an interest in making a profit. He has a plot of land which will provide a profit of X giving a return on investment of Y%. Then he is told that 10% of the proposed homes have to be affordable. This translates to below cost. The developer can either subsidise the community or more likely just put up the price of the other homes thereby maintaining his X and Y. This increases the gap between open market and affordability. Increase the requirement to 20%, this only exasperates the effect, making the gap even bigger. It does not take a lot to extrapolate the curve to understand that this is an unsustainable and failed initiative. Social housing is a good thing but should be provided by the whole community for the benefit of the community. Paid for by taxes, not an indirect hidden tax on development which artificially increases the cost of new housing, thereby pulling up the cost of the whole housing stock. Tempted to have a rant about right to buy Housing Association properties. Another ill conceived illogical idea. End of interlude.
Surveying has moved on from being a couple of guys with a 20" theodolite and staff, or a dumpy level. Information is a lot quicker and cheaper these days. Start with a LIDAR and photogrammetry survey in HD. It takes a little longer and costs a little more but will save resurveying later in the process. Overkill for feasibility but sufficient for design in one hit. I know some people say only get the information that you need at the time. However I consider it to be more efficient to get as much raw data as you can and only process as much as you need. Then when you want a little more to the left you don't have to send out a team again, perhaps to a position of danger, you just pick out the raw data and process it. Surveying has become sexy again. Not in the rugged explorers surveying mountainous terrain way, and creating the first OS maps for our delight and information. Now we have GPS, satellite images, fixed wing and helicopter aerial LIDAR, drones, and cluster autonomous AI drones and bots. Spatially targeted communication, air to ground swarm bots. All for the things we can see, and a multitude of ground penetrating radar and wall penetrating radar for the things we can't see. A couple of years ago BIM would have been considered a swear word at a GIS meeting, now they are getting into bed together. Geoenable BIM is the thing of the moment. It significantly enhances and augments standalone BIM. Geographical Information Systems, GIS, brings a wealth of other data once the BIM model is GEO located. That location can be http://what3words.com OS grid, London grid, or Latitude and Longitude. GIS is a system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyse, manage, and present all types of spatial or geographical data. A standalone BIM model can be given an aspect, but with a location it can both get data for Smart Cities and as an as-built, give back to Smart Cities. Types of information includes tides, flood risk, weather, pollution, air-quality, traffic, solar impact, Climate Change, insurance premiums, retail demographic, objection demographic, area demographic, all as both current and projections. Utilities, Underground railways, mines, and in London, a 3D geology map all add information to the BIM model which aids the decision making progress. Designs become better, with less uncertainty, which equates to less cost, better return on investment. Having the BIM model associated to it’s surroundings helps with planning permissions and providing information to stakeholders in a intelligible manner.
That leads us into informatics, but that is another discussion.
Perhaps that is enough about early digital plan phase BIM. There is of course process, technology, and codification, as well as people.
The required processes
The required processes are well documented but even these can be progressively implemented as your BIM understanding increases.
Technology is another primary element
Technology is another primary element of BIM and is both software and hardware. What you can do in the software and associated software systems such as GIS, Internet of Things, Big Data, and Smart Cities, to name a few is alluded to above. Hardware for the Common Data Environment can be on local servers or in the cloud. It should be owned or controlled by the Client. It is the Client’s data, before, during, and after the intervention (Project). If the Client is not confident in running and maintaining the CDE, he could employ an independent to run it for him. Somebody separate from the Project team. Proprietary Software is a matter of choice, based on best for the job. An informed client will not want to specify the BIM software to be utilised by the supply chain, and will remain software agnostic. Any course other than this negates the open concept of BIM and leads to inefficiencies within the supply chain which will probably cost more than the savings achieved by the Client by just allowing one BIM design platform, and it is not exactly working together with the Project team.
Codification is very complex
Codification is very complex. On the basic level the code can by structured for the single intervention. This is the simplest solution and is an OK place to start. Even at this level the codes still have to relate to the rates database to provide cost data (5D) and to the WBS of the plan/schedule to translate to the time data (4D). However, this is very isolationist, and ultimately inefficient. The next level may be at enterprise level. This will also present problems if the organisation is large and regional. Nomenclature comes into play. Not only are there different regional names for the same items there are different definitions of similar things. When is a bridge a bridge, or a culvert, or a viaduct? How do you count the spans? Do you define the bridge by what is above or below it, or is this just metadata? All such dilemmas have to be resolved to form a consistent codification. Then there are all of the legacy databases which have to be considered, and ultimately converted into the common codification. So a gargantuan task just to achieve enterprise level commonality. Don’t stop your BIM initiative to wait for the enterprise wide codification, you will loose out on too much learning and potential savings. BIM implementation is not linear. It should be approached as a parallel, concurrent collection of activities. In the process of developing your enterprise solution consider the wider national and international structures available such as Uniclass 2015. These are still in development so are likely to change. Again, don’t be diverted or discouraged by this difficulty. Consider if your codification can just be regenerated by mapping one digital data to another when the other structures are resolved. Then you will have the ability to constantly compare your intervention with similar ones across the world. Enabling both national and international benchmarking.
Importantly on to People
Importantly on to People. People are both the most important part of BIM and the most challenging part at the same time. It is people who chose to use the tools and processes or not. As a company you can tell people what to do, but that is only effective to an extent. I have heard expressed a view that people are not a significant element to BIM. They will do as they are told. I don’t prescribe to that view. It takes a lot of time and effort to change the direction of the company. The strategy and mission statement have to be reviewed. Perhaps even the business model. Then you need to start a process of engaging with the staff to commence a structured culture change process, which includes a communication strategy. The different tools and processes are only part of the learning. There is also the required change in behaviours. Behaviour is the real key to collaboration. You can put collaboration into a contract and have KPIs but that does not in itself engender the real collaboration that is required. The Client’s team has to be well versed in the ideas and practices of collaboration, and as with many other things, show leadership and direction. The Client’s team need to embrace change and innovation. Embrace collaboration and live the collaboration dream to deliver the expected results. Then the supply chain teams can get on board and really work this collaboration thing. The supply chain does not follow suit by osmosis alone though. Those companies have to make the same level of investment in their people, including the initial navel gazing. The corporate and cultural change throughout the supply change is the most important element of BIM, the most difficult to achieve, and the longest to come to fruition. Normal change management would be to not start banging the drum until you have something to teach. Don't start teaching until you have something to work with. Teach somebody some new software and if they don’t have access, time, and need to use it, within three months they will need retraining. However, whilst the rules still apply to BIM, treat it as part of the engagement phase, another aspect of communication. There is a lot to do in as short a time as possible and this is the part of BIM implementation that will cost money. Don't delay until you have all the answers. Find ways to engage with your people, to get them interested in change and innovation. Help them to understand what BIM is and how it will effect almost every one in the industry in some way or another. Unless you are about to retire BIM will affect you!
Unless you are about to retire BIM will affect you!
More on the later stages, in another article.
BIM is many things to many people and it is still evolving. No single explanation will suit all, but one thing is sure, BIM is change. Change to attitudes, change to working practices, contracting, procurement, perhaps even change is required in the EU Procurement Rules. Change to business models and of course to technology. We as an industry should look at how we can reduce the number and height of walls as the data progresses from conception to operation and decommissioning.
BIM is the glue. BIM is transformational.
Is BIM bigger than Latham?
Published in three parts in the Civil Engineering Surveyor, the Journal of the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors
Part 1 - November 2012
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/ces/1211/?pn=18 (Link no longer active)
Part 2 - January 2013
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/ces/1301/?pn=38 (Link no longer active)
Part 3 - February 2013
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/ces/1302/?pn=20 (Link no longer active)
Information Flow, Management and Modelling
Is BIM bigger than Latham?
Introduction
This is a discussion paper about Information Flow, Management and Modelling. Information Flow, Management and Modelling (IFMaM) {IFMM is already taken} is an extension of the concept of Building Information Modelling (BIM). The best thing about BIM is that is a pronounceable, single syllable, TLA. (Three letter acronym). After that it goes downhill. It is not just about Buildings, nor is it just about the 3D model. It is however about Information, the flow of information to and from all of the stakeholders and throughout the lifecycle of the asset. Note that it is not just the lifecycle of the project. The information also has to be managed, which includes stored, disseminated, retrieved, collated, compared, searched, and achieved, to name a few. The nD model is also key to the whole. An nD model? A computer model not limited to 3D, or 4D plus time, or 5D plus cost, or plus carbon, or all of the other current and potential additions. Accordingly this article is not just about BIM but Information Flow, Management, and Modelling.
Primary Consideration
Let us consider what we want to do. Taking a holistic view and going right back to basics; we want a ‘whatsit’ to ‘do something’. If we consider the ‘whatsit’ to be some form of asset, something physical, that can be owned, maintained, and disposed of or replaced, it will make this concept easier to comprehend. Similarly, if we consider the ‘do something’ is to provide a primary function, such as make a profit, ensure health and safety, or to provide a social service. There are many non-profit reasons for the provision of a primary function; however, it is probably easiest and clearest to talk about ‘profit’ and accept that it is generally applicable to the whole.
So, we want to own an asset to make a profit. {Note; asset to make a profit not own an asset and make a profit. (Profit is not an incidental)}
That asset will have a lifecycle which will start at conception, work though feasibility, design, manufacture / construction, operation, maintenance, replacement, and ultimately disposal. This lifecycle is of indeterminate length. An example could be some of the railway branch lines that have closed, where the lifecycle of the asset was in excess of one hundred years. However, it could be argued that even this example is on-going as some of the redundant stations are still used as homes, the engine sheds as workshops, and the track as roads and paths. Putting that aside, the asset has a journey through time that has a beginning, middle, and end, just like a life.
What is the size of the asset? Well, it could be a washer, an insulation pad between rail and sleeper, a railway station or the whole railway network. The whole railway network is obviously more complex than a single component part, but both need management. And to be able to manage you need information. I will have a tendency to use railway examples but it is not restricted to railway any more than BIM is restricted to Buildings. It also applies to an Airbus, a car, a nuclear power station, and the list goes on.
On to profit
Profit can be made by many parties alone the lifecycle of a project. The designer can make a profit in the design, the contractor may make a profit in construction, but ultimately, to provide its primary function, the asset has to make a profit for the asset owner over the lifecycle of the asset.
Let us look at an example of a hypothetical nuclear power station. The United Kingdom's first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1956. There would have been high startup costs of research, design and construction. After that, operation and the production of electricity would have been relatively cheap. On a non-treasury based model, the electricity cost per unit would have to include an element of the startup costs so as to recoup those costs and eventually make a profit, after consideration of finance charges and the like. If that level of income was compared to operational costs, the profit would have perhaps appeared excessive. However, that is not the whole extent of the story, the nuclear waste has to be stored and the power station decommissioned. The huge cost of this wipes out all of the profit made in the half century of operation if the profitability level was based on operational costs. I don’t have any facts to make this pretend example an assertion but it demonstrates the necessity of taking whole life costs into consideration, both when considering the business case of an asset and assessing its profitability during the course of its lifecycle.
It is therefore evident that it should not necessarily be expected for an asset to make a profit during all the stages of the asset lifecycle but it is a prerequisite that the asset makes a profit when the whole lifecycle is taken into consideration. Conceptually, this could include only moving into profit upon disposal, provided always, that all of the financing and other incidental costs are included in the equation.
So where have we got to? We understand that an asset can be pretty much any physical thing. (not going to try to deal with non-physical things here, far too difficult). We also understand that the profit we are considering is that of the asset owner, and has to be considered over the whole life of the asset.
Where next?
We have a desire to own an asset to make a profit. Let us consider something relatively simple, a wheel. What is its main function? I would suggest, to aid the movement of an object. Is the wheel part of a set? Does it have bearings for an axel stub? Is it solid or does it have spokes? How many spokes. Does it have a tyre? Is that tyre rubber or steel. If rubber, is it pneumatic or solid? Does it have to look pretty? Function over form. Again, just a few examples. However, it illustrates that you have to have a mix of Systems Engineering, Requirements Management, and Value Management before you even know what your asset is. Then you have to have somebody design the wheel for you. You tell the designer you want to have something to aid the movement of an object, and you get a selection of logs. Not what you wanted? Perhaps the information flow was wrong. You provide more information and you get closer to what you envisaged.
Systems Engineering, Requirements Management, Risk Management and Value Management
Continuing with the example of the wheel. If you add to its function, that it is a railway power wheel, i.e. its end use, you have added a complication, but again improved the probability that the designer will provide you something useful. On first inspection the wheel can be solid with a steel tyre. However, reviewing the adjacent equipment will identify that there are brakes behind the wheel which would benefit from cooling, and a stub axel as part of the powered bogie which identifies the need for specific form of bearings. Looking at the whole system will inevitable provide a better, more integrated design solution than isolated bits of kit being thrown together. This is where the Systems Engineering comes in. Extend the scope of consideration further, beyond the wheel and the locomotive /powered carriage, and un-sprung weight becomes part of the issue of the wheel / rail interface. The ‘system’ has suddenly got much larger.
Any component has to be designed with due regard for the system within which it will sit and operate. Much as the design will evolve as it progresses through the stages of ‘outline’ to ‘approved for construction’ or manufacture so will the Systems Engineering.
The element of the requirements that describe the asset, its function and use will remain static. The finished design can be checked against the initial requirements. Other elements can be added, such as type, number, and size of ventilation holes, as the design progresses, and used to confirm that the asset has been manufactured both to the asset owner’s function and end use requirements, and the designer’s requirements.
Risk Management is also a key element. What is the probability of a flat tyre and what will be the probable impact. Well, surprisingly, even steel tyres get flats, which can cause broken rails, which in turn causes a failure of the signalling system.
Value Management also comes in to play. If the wheel is for a high cost, high performance car, does the value = function ÷ cost equation justify the use of mag alloy wheels? The Institute of Value Management web site states; ‘The aim of Value Management is to reconcile all stakeholders’ views and to achieve the best balance between satisfied needs and resources.’ …
So where have we got to now? We understand about the asset and profit. We also understand the need to think of the whole system within which the asset will operate; the need for having requirements established and clearly recorded and communicate; and the benefit of risk and value management.
Stages of Asset Lifecycle
We also have the issue of the different stages of the lifecycle of the asset and the different perspective of the stakeholders in those stages. This can include a single stakeholder (perhaps the owner) having different views (excited during feasibility, concerned during construction, and disinterested during decommissioning) or the construction contractor having a narrow, single stage perspective.
It does not particularly matter if we refer to RIBA stages, GRIP stages, or any other stage sequence for this discussion, as the outcome applies equally to them all. Suffice to say there are the following core stages in the lifecycle of most physical assets;
- Early stage, incorporating conception, pre-feasibility, feasibility.
- Design stage, incorporating, research, outline design, detailed design, and approved for manufacture / construction
- Manufacture / Construction; Often considered as ‘the Project.’
- Operation, including maintenance and renewals
- Disposal, including demolition, de-commissioning, return to original state and abandonment.
Even before we have got to BIM we have the perennial and difficult issue of information flow, communication and a multitude of stakeholders. How can all the dispirit people, with not always the same goal, produce, operate and dispose of the asset? Should we give up now and accept that there is such a small probability of success that we would be mad to even think about starting. No, of course not, we will add 50% contingency, cost and time, and get on with it. It will work out in the end. It might even make a profit!
Early stage information flow
Remembering that we want an asset, with which we can make a profit, but let us change from a simple wheel to a railway station. It is a new station, for ease of the example. However, the rail network is already in place. We need all of the information about the existing network. We need to control and record the transfer of that information and disseminate to the right people. Who are the right people? Stakeholder Management comes to mind. Not only do we need to manage the information flow with software and registers we need to manage the way people interface. This also involves reviewing the roles and responsibilities of not just individual people but the disciplines as well. What should the hierarchy of all of the stakeholders be? We have now been provided with all of the information available, allegedly. How do we know if it is in fact all of the information available, or if it is sufficient. In all probability only people involved in the latter stages of the lifecycle will be in a position to answer this. So, despite being at the early stage, and even just in terms of information, we need to engage with other stakeholders, perhaps in the operations stage.
Let me offer the following scenario to you, which is exacerbated with current procurement tendencies.
- A group of people have an idea.
- That group of people give their idea to another group that test the feasibility.
- A consultant is procured to create an outline design. The concept and information previously gathered is thrown over a metaphorical wall in a contractual package. No conferring allowed.
This throwing over wall concept continues throughout the life of the asset but we will stop there for the moment. Suffice it to say that there is already identified a series of disjoints in information flow and in stakeholder involvement, interests and perceptions.
The conceptual idea could have come from the potential operator of the asset, but it is unlikely that he would have much, if any input to the feasibility discussions and decisions, and even less, in the following stages.
Our information therefore tends to be both constrained and in one direction only. We have already improved the quality of the information by using Systems Engineering, Requirements Management, Risk Management and Value Management. However, could all of that become diluted by how we pass it on, how we manage and distribute it?
Design stage information flow
We have spent many years catching these bundles of information thrown over the wall and have become quite good at dealing with them. We review the information in an impossibly short period of time and say how much it will cost to get to (wherever the ITT requires). We of course put in a few time bombs, and wriggle clauses. (Assumptions and exclusions). In the interests of protecting our position and or making more money (claims).
As the led designer we now control everything, including the client? We control the information flow. There are risk registers to be updated. Value management workshops to be held, because it says so in the contract. Systems Engineering to be ignored and requirements to be misinterpreted. Sorry, is that too cynical and disparaging? Irrespective of that, there is a lot of information to be managed, understood and disseminated. A communications register will help but soon becomes a huge burden. As the design moves from outline design through toward detailed design it is probable that a large number of other designers become involved, from different disciplines. They all have roles to play irrespective if they are internal to the lead designer or external companies. But who is the first in the chain of design. Does the track fit the civils? Do the foundations sit under the station or the station sit on top of the foundations? Does the MEP avoid the structural elements of the station or go through holes for that purpose?
By now we should have a 3D model as well. Shall we call that BIM? No, a 3D model is not necessarily BIM.
With all of the information there is now moving around the various stakeholders, systems and companies, it must now be time to exercise some rationalisation and come up with some new coding systems that can be added to all the different disciplines and company systems to allow them all to talk to each other. Too difficult, too big a job?
Stop all of that, it is time to package it all up and throw it over the wall again.
Procurement rules say so. It is a different design stage; another designer may offer to do it for less money.
Now the detailed designer can do it all again. Sometimes even throwing the outline design away and coming up with a new solution. Obliviously, the new solution will still comply with requirements and as System Engineering is now more important, it will also be re-considered.
Still no way to efficiently manage the information flow, and still primarily only in one direction. A one way street with a few bike messengers pedalling in the wrong direction.
Manufacture / Construction stage information flow
You have got the idea, over the wall again. This time even less information is thrown over, and it is hidden in a mass of contractual requirements. It is also often called a project, as if it has a separate life of its own. Shall we refer to this as the teenage years? Perhaps not.
The Contractor has a design, but still has to hire a designer for the temporary works, construction joints, and any details left out of the detailed design. The information has been presented in a way particular to the previous lead designer and the software that he uses. It is very unlikely that the information provided will be in a format used by the Contractor. He will continue to use his company systems and accounting software.
It is the Contractor’s turn to do some throwing. This time to sub-contractors and specialists.
As the contractor has had no previous input into the station he is building, he is continually asserting that elements of the design, can’t be build, are inefficient, and ‘I would not have done it like that’.
And still the information flows. More circular in notion now with requests for information and answers back from the lead designer, via the client, as the designer is no longer directly involved.
There is now more information than can be properly managed. The station is being built as fast as the final pieces of information are put in place. And then bits of the station are changed, as building progresses. Diamond drilling machines to make holes for MEP that does not easily go through 7 day strength concrete. Offices without doors are difficult to decorate. Proposed concrete beams and columns intersections where the reinforcement is so congested that only 10mm aggregate concrete will suffice.
The ribbon is cut, the topping out party forgotten. Better get on with the Health and Safety File. Difficult thought, keep getting interrupted by the new Station Master. Politely, suggesting that I know nothing about the running of a railway or a station. He should be shouting at the designer not me, but I am the only one left, compiling this infernal Health and Safety File. I wonder how much I can leave out?
Operation information flow
The operator may or may not have had his little bundle of joy thrown over the wall. He has some of the operational manuals, but not all. He has some of the drawings, the approved for construction ones. Still waiting for the As-builts. Never mind, no way of reading them anyway. The Station Master is still fuming. He (including other operational staff) was not approached about the technical, practical, or aesthetic requirements of the Station before it was built and now he has barely enough information to run the station. The control room is in the wrong place. The circulation area is too small to cope with race days. The ticketing, well, it is ok to want to have more people buy online, but what about Monday mornings. When on earth was the pedestrian flow survey done, not a Monday morning that is for sure? The ticket queues for the windows and ticket machines zig-zag around the concourse and intertwine to make it near impossible to get to the gate line. Wait until winter when it is cold and wet outside. Where are the queues going to overflow to then? And why is there more retail than circulation area. Is this a shopping centre with a doorway for entrance to the station, or a railway station with a small café and newsagent for the benefit of the passengers?
Disposal information flow
On to the final stage, but who needs information about how it was built, and with what. All that stuff is irrelevant. Lost in time if it was ever kept. A few quick asbestos surveys and a big enough nibbler, that is all we need to knock the old station down. Recycle? Yes, it can all go as rubble. What about the more valuable items? Landfill for anything that can’t be sold as rubble!
Efficient and effective
Well that was all too depressing. Hopefully we have progressed a little from that bleak vision. But by how much? Not enough I suspect. With all of the hurdles set against becoming the owner of a profitable asset, it is surprising that anything ever gets built. It is a testament to the people of this industry, the ingenuity, the perseverance, the skills, and the shear dogged determination, that we have a functional built environment.
New world
A brave new world of the future? Why not. There are lots of reasons why the old system developed, generally good, or necessary, at the time, but technology has moved forward as have the financial constraints and the concept requirements.
Talk is of efficiency and collaboration, of savings of 20% and more, of whole life costs, and of course of sustainability and legacy.
The need for change is evident, and the time is now. (Well a few years back, actually, but that is another story)
Structure of information and codification
We have to change the way we deal with information. The first part of reengineering a corporation commission is to identify the internal and external information flow. An internal example would be perhaps the ‘goods received note’ data getting to accounts to allow efficient payment of the suppliers invoice. An external example would be the completion of the Government Financial Statistics. In the latter case the information is required to comply with the codification of SIC 2007.
UK Standard Industrial Classification 2007 (UK SIC 2007)
From the Office of National Statistics;
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was first introduced into the UK in 1948 for use in classifying business establishments and other statistical units by the type of economic activity in which they are engaged.
The classification provides a framework for the collection, tabulation, presentation and analysis of data, and its use promotes uniformity.
In addition, it can be used for administrative purposes and by non-government bodies as a convenient way of classifying industrial activities into a common structure.
Since 1948 the classification has been revised in 1958, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1997, and 2003.
What, I hear you say; there has been a standard classification since 1948.
I also recall that the largest construction group in the world (at the time) created a codification system covering all its activities in the 1980s. It had an integrated system that recorded the;
- contacts,
- information about those contacts
- the Invitation to Tender received from those contacts,
- the attached Bills of Quantities,
- the Estimate built up to supply a price
- the Programme of work activities
- the Price
- the Valuations
- the Extras, variations and claims
- the payment history
- and the lessons learnt
All based upon a single codification structure which went all the way down to a single resource. That could be a labourer or a brick. If you only had permissions for a small section of a building site, you would know how many bricks and the associated cost and value, were allowed for in the
- estimate,
- current forecast,
- cost to complete, and
- how many had already been used.
Conversely, if you had full access rights or super-user rights, you could also see how many blue engineering bricks had been used around the world, including information such as which counties, which months, suppliers and prices paid. Interesting phone call to Lord Hanson.
Once you had a codification like that, it was simple, efficient and cheap to manage internal information flow.
In those days it was perceived as a Corporate Commercial advantage to have a system like that. The down side was that it was protected and therefore did not integrate with other, external systems. The ITT came with a Bill of Quantities which was printed (at the printers) and left with hand written numbers for the rates, extensions and collections.
Today, we have e-procurement, but only a limited codification system. CITE 4.2 provides a format standard but not a classification or codification standard.
We also have Uniclass (Unified Classification for the Construction Industry), published in 1997 by The Construction Industry Project Information Committee (CPIC), which is in the process of being updated. Uniclass 2 has many improvements, especially as part of a computer handled expandable codification system.
We are also aware of barcodes, and QR codes. Look out for the introduction of technologies such as radio frequency identification, or RFID, at a supermarket near you. Have you heard that it is currently feasible, in technological terms, for you to fill your trolley at the supermarket, walk through an airport security type door frame, and as long as you get the green light, you just keep walking. Before you get to the supermarket entrance your bank has paid for all of the goods in the trolley and an e-mail sent to you with your receipt and loyalty vouchers. As if by magic, no more queuing at the checkouts. All done with RFID marked products instead of barcodes, or as well as for those that prefer to queue at the sole remaining checkout.
On a more construction related use, each floor of a high rise office construction site, could be identified with RFID, indeed each room. You enter the room with your ipad, sorry, tablet or laptop, and all you need to know about that room is at you finger tips. The same applies to a huge operational hospital, but now it is not what you have to build, but what you have to maintain. It is feasible that you have the operation manuals for the equipment, maintenance schedules, work history, work orders and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) statistical data. Each carriage or wagon on a train could have an RFID marker (was this the first use of the barcode!) and therefore carry its life story with it. Shipping Containers are moved and tracked around the world using technology. In fact the containerization of the shipping industry reduced average transport costs from approximately 50% down to 3% of the product cost.
Consider also the logistics of the running the Integrated Distribution Depot for the Crossrail project. The idea is to reduce lorry movements in central London. Bulk deliveries go to the depot and are then collated with many other products from a multitude of suppliers to go to a selection of contractors, to a single destination, such as Bond Street Station, each night, providing just enough, just in time. Potentially, this reduces the number of lorry movements by 1000s. However, it is a very difficult task to receive the goods form a particular supplier purchased by single contractor and then control its distribution to the correct contractor to the correct sites at the right time, together with lots of other products to many contractors. Liability and ownership of the products remains with the contractors. A common coding system of all of the products, cross referenced to suppliers and contractors systems, is essential for any chance for a Distribution Depot to work.
If the only change we as an industry could manage was to have a common unified coding structure for the flow of information, all the information, across all of the walls and hurdles we will have achieved a significant improvement.
The demise of the Bill of Quantities (BoQ)
How should we arrange that information? What is that information? In the past our codification system had to be a single hierarchical string. With its roots based in paper, this is entirely understandable. A BoQ has a very definite and prescribed hierarchy and format. Unless it is printed of Harry Potter paper, that order is the same which every way you look at it, irrespective of the information you want out of it. Despite the computerisation of BoQs they still are broadly the same as their ancestral paper versions, possibly less informative as there tends to be less location information. Alongside the BoQ we also have various Break Down Structures, such as WBS, CBS, LBS and OBS, respectively for Work, Cost, Location and Organisation. The pertinent word being ‘alongside’, they don’t talk to each other, they don’t interact. If you are working on a one of the small bridges of motorway site, the BoQ does not separate itself to become relevant to you. It retains its whole structure and therefore becomes irrelevant. In fact the whole concept of a BoQ is now redundant and irrelevant and should be consigned to the history books.
You can’t dump BoQs, I hear the cry go up, but this time not sure how loudly. OK, let us examine what a BoQ is used for;
- Inclusion in an ITT to inform the tenderer of the quantities of the project.
- Returned as the pricing element of a tender, with rates, extensions and collections.
- Forms part of the contract documents
- Provides the template for the process of valuation and certification.
In the past it would also be used for;
- The creation of work packages for sub-contract enquires.
- The basis of the tenderers estimate
- The basis of the contractors Cost Value Reconciliation (CVR)
All of the above functionality can be provided more effectively and efficiently in alternative, more meaningful, flexible, and useful ways. Provided always, that you have access to a computer. ‘Cut and Shuffle’ used to be done with real bits of paper. The Spreadsheet has replaced abstract paper.
nD matrix
Since the advent of the computer we have learnt to slice and dice information in so many different ways that we can have analytical and statistical data about most things in lots of different formats, at almost the press of a few buttons. We would not be able to carry out Earned Value Analysis (EVA) if our cost, value, and time data were not aligned so as to be comparable.
We need to harness that computing power and think of data, information, and knowledge differently. Conceptually we can grasp the concept of layers of detail in respect of information. Look at Google Earth or Google Maps, you start at a very high level, ‘The World’ and zoom in, without changing page, you are, in satellite view, looking at the roof of you own home. Change to street view and you may be looking at your front door. The same software could be used to have the complete works of William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens on the back of a postage stamp, still at each word and letter, level of detail. This can be extrapolated to a totally new form of data manaipulation and visualisation as demonstrated at http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/pivotviewer/ . A more construction related example, again Crossrail, as it is quite big. The headline cost prediction is approximately £16,000m, but if you dig deep enough, that figure is ultimately supported by a Pandrol clip (or similar approved) or insulation pad in both the cost build up and the accounts. If you know where to, you can buy an insulation pad, there are many different types, but it is an off the shelve component. It has a predicted life span, in various environments and uses. It has a MTBF and a maintenance regime. It has a data sheet and a specification. Add another few components to the insulation pad, and you have some railway track. Add a few tunnels and stations, and a smattering of railway systems and you have a Crossrail.
Levels of detail or layers can work in both directions.
The same concept applies for any of the resources, permanent or temporary, labour, plant, or material.
From this we can gather that the costs for our project come in at one very low level. This does not mean that we have to stay at that level for all of our analytical and statistical comparisons of cost and value. I suspect we would not remain in the board room, reporting on the CVR of a project, if we discussed the cost, value, and profitability of the insulation pads, and all of the rest of the resources, at that level. If there was a significant problem which impacted upon the whole, maybe, and only maybe, but definitely not all.
Also, even the lowest level of data has other information attached to it.
Levels of detail give us one element of the structure. What is the rest of the matrix? As has been already established there are too many elements for a single linear structure to cope with modern requirements. There are the previously mentioned various Break Down Structures, such as WBS, CBS, LBS and OBS, respectively for Work, Cost, Location and Organisation. The primary list I have established is;
- Asset
- Cost
- Location
- Procurement
- Work
- Interventions
- Resource
- Organisation
- And, of course, Time
Add to the whole and the above list, Parameters and Complexities, you are able describe in some detail all you need to know about a widget. The above headings are ill-defined, but are therefore wide in scope, all encompassing.
It is plausible to have the whole of the matrix interrelated. As an example, Location having an explicit relationship with each of the other primaries, and so on through the list. However, it is more practicable and comprehensible to have a backbone which is used to construct and maintain the relationship with each primary and thereby the interrelationship between them all. I believe that backbone should be made of assets. This fits with the objectives set at the start, we want to own an asset to make a profit.
Let us consider an example of the cleaning of a lens on a railway signal;
A red lens on a railway signal is connected to a lamp of a signal head, which is connected to a signal post, which is connected, to cabling and LOC boxes, which in turn are connected to an interlocking, in a signal box or control centre. This represents our single asset and our complex collective asset dependent upon level of detail, the backbone. It has a unit cost both for the product and its maintenance. That unit cost varies according to location of the signal and the work to be carried out. The type of procurement method used to acquire the necessary services has an impact upon the base unit cost and possibly the frequency of cleaning. The type of work carried out by the signal, and its location will also impact, generally, in terms of frequency and accessibility. Its use will also affect the impact of any down time, or lack of availability, to use RAMS speak. Also, the method of working will impact. The type of intervention, a light clean with a rag, deep clean, or replace with new, will change the base cost. The resources sent to carry out the cleaning will change the cost, the location of the resource, how it was procured, weather it is planned or reactive maintenance. The organisation surrounding the asset, the material suppliers, the resources, and the users, and any other stakeholders. Now add to that mix, the complexity, that the signal is in a tunnel with overhead line equipment, which runs a 22 hour service.
By thinking of this as a multi-dimensional matrix with layers and by using the asset as a backbone we are able to comprehend the concept and the interactions which in turn will enable us to predict with a reasonable tolerance, cost, time, frequency, and interventions, together with benchmarking and other statistical analysis. By virtue of the method of data collection, collation, and the subsequent information flow we can provide all of the necessary knowledge to manage the asset to provide a set RAMS target, service level, efficiently, effectively and economically, thereby enhancing the probability of our asset making a whole life profit. Only with the reliable and timeous data can you continually make the right decisions at the right time. Asset Management.
How BIM fits
Now, through BIM into the mix.
Let us first consider some of the common misconceptions;
- It is another fad
- It does not affect me
- It is just CAD on steroids
- It only needs a bit of training for those CAD operators
- It is only a bit of software
- CAD with 3D
- Just to look pretty
- Only impacts designers
- No use to owners / clients
- No use to contractors
- No use to FM or operators
- It will not affect our industry
- It is only for buildings
I could go on, I suspect you can think of some more. It is none of the above.
So what is it? It is a different process, and it is the change in process that provides most of the benefits. I have heard talk of 20% saving on Capital Cost, which as an example, equates to a saving of approximately £100m on a project like London Bridge Redevelopment, if fully utilised. I have also heard of savings in the £m on the production of the health a safety file on a large hospital project.
Before we look at the detail of the process, let us explore some of the software. We started with paper drawings, and tried to portray a three dimensional object with the use of elevations, plans, and isometric drawings. Then we did the same, but on computers. We still needed a certain visual dexterity to be able to formulate the finished object in our mind. Then came 3D models. The same CAD process but with a 3D rendering of the object, with some jaw dropping graphic effects. One of the differences with a BIM 3D model is that it is build up using intelligent 3D objects. What does that mean? Consider ,if you will, a standard 305x305 Universal Column. You could look up the properties for that in a structural steel handbook. In a 3D model all you have is a representation of the UC without any other information, it is just a few lines on the page. Should you decide to raise the ceiling, just stretch the box representation. However, with an intelligent object or element, it has all the parameters and characteristics associated with the UC. This not only includes yield and bending moment but surface area, web thickness, weight per metre etc. So, when you grab a corner and stretch the UC in the 3D model, not only does the weight change, so does the painted area, the fire protection, and perhaps the size of the crane handling it. The software for doing this is frequently an enhancement of the earlier CAD software from the existing vendors, of which there are a few.
Now here we get an added complication. With the software! Different design houses and different design disciplines have both different requirements and favourites. Just considering the different disciplines for the moment, a structural engineer may use different software to that of a civil engineer. It is most probable that the earthworks are done on another software offering. Then you have the MEP engineer with their specialist software, together with all the other specialists. There are protocols for the dispirit software programs to be able to exchange date, but they are not always very robust in operation. Fortunately there are some companies developing special software to force the design software to talk to each other and become friends.
Part of this particular problem can be dealt with by the client prescribing which software to use. However, that has its own set of inefficiencies, including the prescribed software may be very good for structural design but poor for MEP. Also, the individual designer may be more proficient with his favourite than the one prescribed.
So software aside, and back to the process. You will recall the walls described earlier, between the different stages of the lifecycle. Well, it is actually worse than that, because the disciplines within the design stages are somewhat disjointed as well. I am not saying that it is to the extent that it is dysfunctional, just not as efficient as it could be.
Collaboration is the key
Our industry needs to change quite significantly to achieve the efficiencies being headlined by the government. Collaboration is the key. Collaboration is fundamental to the ability to exchange information within a BIM model environment. Consider a project at design stage where the Structural Engineer is in the lead. The Structural Engineer creates an outline design according to the client’s brief and passes the 3D model to the Architect and MEP designer they use the information to create their own models in their normal and preferred software. However, they all use different, arbitrary origins. Having different software is a difficulty, but an understandable one that can be overcome. Understandable, because not all software is created equal. Not only do they feel different, but some do specialist things that others do not do well, or readily, or in some cases, at all. A simple platform, with a camber across its width, curved in plan and elevation, with a sloping longitudinal axis is almost impossible to render in some BIM packages, but easy in others. However, the origin being different on 3 different BIM models which are required to be merged, even for the simplest of tasks, such as clash detection, is a very different problem.
Right from the outset the Structural Engineer, Architect, and MEP designer have to collaborate. They have to agree an origin and a common coding structure for their individual BIM models. The common coding structure is required to avoid using the same code being used for different intelligent objects within the three different BIM models. This is not a problem whilst the three models remain separate, but becomes a fundamental problem upon merger.
The cooperation and collaboration has to exist in a different way as well. It is no longer acceptable for the lead designer, in this case the Structural Engineer to do their thing, and then pass it to the next tier down to do their thing, until the last designer has to make do with fitting his element around all of the previous, as best he can, generally, without any view to efficiency of production, build, or operation. Sequential working is a thing of the past. Concurrent working will slash overall design time and therefore bring the asset into use sooner. Into profitability sooner! With the three designers working together, albeit on separate BIM models, merging the models on a regular basis, perhaps weekly, reviewing the clash detection, and the cost and duration of the proposed build, they can, and will have to work cooperatively and collaboratively to progress and conclude the design.
What, where did cost and duration come from, and weekly? We understand the concept of clash detection. We have heard of completed designs being transferred into BIM and subsequent clash detection identifying over a thousand errors in design.
The BIM model is made up entirely of intelligent objects, all with dimensions, characteristics and parameters. It is entirely feasible that each of those have their own parameters including cost, carbon, energy efficiency, and output or time. Therefore as the design progresses, as soon as the BIM models are merged, a revised cost is calculated automatically from the BIM model.
At this point the collaboration extends beyond the three designers, to include the client. Suddenly, there exists the capability to design to a budget.
Designing to a budget
Back to the asset and its profitability. The decision to go forward with the Project was made based on a Business case that provided a level of return on investment that fell within a set range, or perhaps did not fall below a set level. A particularly volatile part of the equation in the construction industry is the cost of constructing the asset. Traditionally this variability is accommodated by a combination of skilled quantity surveyors providing cost plans and estimates, with tolerances and contingencies, together with stage gates.
At each of the stage gates the viability of the project is reviewed and compared against the original objectives, requirements, and business case. Failure on any of these should result in the project failing to pass through the gate. This does not always happen, but that is what the gate is for. The project is either dropped altogether or reworked so as to be fit for passing through the gate. On very large, publicly funded projects, the reviews are both internal and external, with the external element being carried out by the Major Projects Review Group (MPRG) or its successors. Even Crossrail was subjected to the rigors of the MPRG interrogation before it could start construction in earnest.
Before each gate a bevy of quantity surveyors would review the designs and assess the revised cost. Occasionally the quantity surveyors would challenge the designers and the design was amended. Sometimes there would also be a Value Management exercise to test the value = function ÷ cost equation. (More often [incorrectly] used as a cost reduction tool without any regard for value or function). Such exercises are time consuming and costly. Also they revert to the sequential pattern of working. This does not fit with the cooperative, collaborative ethos of the design. So these exercises can be done away with. The BIM model has all the information necessary to know the cost of every design change or development. There is a subtle but important difference between design change and a design development but I don’t think we need to explore that here. So as the design is progressed from a concept towards detailed design the comparison between anticipated final cost and budget can be continually reassessed. The design for a station with a budget of £25m will not become a surprise cost plan of £45m because it has a green roof, fully air conditioned, with heat exchangers and ground source heating piles, etc. In this scenario, a full redesign would be required with another round of VM and cost planning to reduce the budget by £20m. Far better to know each week that the design, as it develops, is within budget. If there is a business case for additional capital expenditure to install ground source heating piles so as to reduce operating, and whole life costs, in this new collaborative arrangement, this can be discussed with the client, as the design progresses, and added as a change. This change would also increase the budget, or come out of contingency, and bring the project back into an acceptable budget tolerance.
So, to recap, we now have collaboration between the various disciplines of designer, the client and the quantity surveyors. We have removed a number of the previously explained, ‘through it over the wall’ situations.
Designing for build ability
When the design is complete, are we going to revert to form, and through the design over the wall as part of an ITT again. Probably, for the time being, but let us assume not, or not entirely, at least.
The BIM model now has a huge amount of information imbedded into it and its associated databases. There has been a successful cooperation and collaboration between the client, designers, of all disciplines, quantity surveyors, and planners. As this is a good, well-conceived, and managed project, we will assume that the System Engineers, and Value and Risk Managers have also been included in the collaboration.
However, this is about information flow and management as well as modelling. It is about all stages of the lifecycle of an asset, as well as all stages of a project. The next logical stage is construction or manufacture. Our BIM model, with all the information that it holds, has not necessarily got very much about build ability. That can be mitigated by including contractors into the collaboration at an early stage. There is a difficulty to this of course. The contractor has yet to be appointed due to the procurement process requiring an ITT with design information in it. Perhaps we will have to accept, for the time being at least, that we cannot have the contractor who is going to carry out the works as part of the collaboration, but we can have either a contractor or people with a contracting background.
The concrete slab and columns envisaged by the designer is one simple monolith. However, from a contractor’s perspective they are individual pours, with kickers for walls and columns, temporary joints and formwork. It would be more efficient if the contractors’ requirements for build ability, including temporary works, falsework, handling, access, and stockpiling were all included in the evolving BIM model. The BIM model software would have to be flexible enough to allow simple changes within the build ability framework without affecting the underlying design. Additionally, the contractors’ elements could also include cost and time parameters as part of the intelligent objects. The contractors’ method of working is now included in the cost and time framework of the BIM model. Side effect, claims have just become much easier to demonstrate and evaluate, if genuine, or refute if not. So much so, that they will be easily dealt with by the change mechanisms of the Contract.
Designing for operability
Similarly, another step forward and we add the operators and maintainers to the collaboration, right from the outset of the design concept, and we have both improved efficiency and the asset we seek to procure, and thereby, its profitability.
Designing for disposability
And finally, to the disposal of the asset. The same applies, have a disposal plan built into the concept, and collaborate with the right people.
Collaboration with all the main stakeholders
This section started with collaboration is key. This has, as we have seen, evolved into cooperation and collaboration with all the main stakeholders, through the whole of the lifecycle of the asset, is key.
The information must flow easily between all of the parties in a controlled and managed way so that pertinent information is available to all parties whenever they need it. Information exchange is required regularly and frequently and must not become an inappropriate burden.
So how does BIM fit?
The asset was previously described as the backbone. We may now consider the BIM model and associated databases the ribcage. BIM is bigger, and more important than most people think. The current level of hype is relatively understated as the push is only to level 2, but when the whole BIM concept is considered in its entirety, it is change on a massif scale. Common coding is essential, at the heart of the process.
Increase the scope further, as with Information Flow, Management and Modelling and you have huge increases in the efficiencies of the industry and the cultural change envisaged by Latham, on steroids. With the unavoidable change in process and how people interact, the required cultural change, our industry will change for the better, for good.
Conclusion
Learn about Information Flow, Management and Modelling soon. Get on board quickly, and embrace the change. Don’t just stop at level 2 BIM and think that is the end of the changes. And, yes it is bigger than Latham.
Enjoy.
Author; Ivan Hurst MCInstCES. All rights reserved October 2012.
Information Flow, Management and Modelling
Is BIM bigger than Latham? Follow up
Introduction
I have been asked questions about Information Flow, Management and Modelling (IFMaM) and Building Information Modelling (BIM). Currently they resolve into three or four (depending on how you count) core questions;
- How will BIM impact upon the railways,
- Who should own the model,
- Are there opportunities to set up BIM consultancies,
- What will happen to Quantity Surveyors?
These are all very valid and interesting questions which I will attempt to answer, from my own perspective.
How will BIM impact upon the railways?
This question is also put as ‘Will BIM have any significance in the railways?’ I will fuse them to make ‘Will BIM have any significance in the railways, and if so what impact will it have?’ Asking around, I have found that there is little appreciation of BIM in the railway environment generally. It seems to be business as usual. However, being a consultant has some advantages. I am able to see lots of different sides of the industry, from Designer, Contractor, and Client, and get a feel for things that I would otherwise have no knowledge of. I am therefore aware of some of the things going on in the background, which, in this instance, I do not consider to be indiscrete to share with you.
I am very impressed with the efforts London Underground has adopted for the implementation of BIM. It has a dated and budgeted change management programme which has dedicated resources. Those resources are implementing the change to, and adoption of BIM in a controlled and professional manner with due regard for the Government’s requirements of 2016.
I have less information about Network Rail but believe they have a dedicated Director and BIM managers on the major programmes. I am aware that the London Bridge Station Redevelopment has a BIM requirement and that there have been some discussions about undertaking a full 3D survey of Waterloo Station.
So, whilst there may not be a lot of impact on the ground yet, I believe that it will become a lot more prevalent very soon. When it does, I think it will be part of an integrated solution. Not just BIM as a standalone product, just there to be compliant with the government’s requirement for a maturity level 2 by 2016.
Let me reminisce for a while. During the late 1990’s and into the start of 2000’s there were a number of initiatives that I was fortunate enough to be involved with, generally as a committee member. Thinking back, the first of any relevance was the Y2K programme. This started out as being part of the preparations for the ‘millennium bug’. It also included a review of all of Railtrack’s Access databases and data holding Spreadsheets. These were catalogued, reviewed, and categorised into Business Critical, Business Significant, and another, the name of which escapes me at the moment, followed by ‘not required’. A lot of duplication was found, even at Business Critical level. Corporate risk was reduced by identifying the Business Critical and Significant data depositories and actively managing them. Efficiencies were gained by comparing the duplicate solutions and picking the best practice example and adopting it, or occasionally combining a number of solutions to provide the best single solution. The result was the adoption of single solutions across the company with dedicated management to ensure the robustness (reliability and availability) of the BC&BS products.
A further development of the Y2K was the rationalisation of the asset databases. I sat on the signalling committee. There the structure and codification of the signalling asset was set. The red lens connects to the signal head, the signal post, the cabling, etc, to the control centre or signal box. The same happened for all of the asset categories.
Control and regularisation of data was taking on greater importance than previously.
There may be a few readers that remember the RAR programme. This was the ambitious linking of video to information. At the time it was stretching the capability of the computers, with special kiosks for viewing the output, as the ordinary desktop computers could not handle the data flows. Consider the Great Western Main Line. A special train was fitted with multiple video cameras, forward and side facing on the cab. The train travelled the line and the images processed as video and 3D images. Where available this was augmented with aerial views taken by helicopter s following the line searching for equipment hot spots, in a similar fashion to the same process used for National Grid power lines. At the same time Railtrack did a deal with Ordnance Survey regarding the sharing of data. The videos were superimposed onto the relevant map tiles, and connected to the asset database. The result was that you could watch the video, see a piece of equipment at the side of the track, pause the video and find out about the location and details of that asset without leaving the office. Also you could look at a map, and zoom in to a specific location until you could see the assets, their details and the associated video, 3D image, and any photos.
Shortly after RAR, I was involved in RAMP. RAMP was the Railtrack Asset Management Programme. RAMP was a huge change management programme with a budget to match its aspirations. It was about creating the decision making tools of the future. More evidence based and less intuition. As such part of it was to do with knowledge management and part the management of information. The establishment of MIMS (trade name; Mincom Information Management System rebadged as Maintenance Information Management System for UK railways) as the core Rail Infrastructure Asset Register.
Read more;
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2004/jan/26/rail-infrastructure-asset-register
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/145/14505.htm
Both the Railtrack Chairman and Tom Windsor, the then Rail Regulator visited the team at King’s Cross Eastside Offices, prior to the change of licence instigated by the Rail Regulator in April 2001.
The adoption of MIMS and the associated task based workflow management ultimately led to Maintenance being taken ‘in house’ by Network Rail’ some years later. RAMP also initiated the change from PMCS, Railtrack’s bespoke financial reporting software, to Oracle.
I could go on reminiscing, but I think suffice to say that there has long been an appetite within the rail industry for information management. An appetite which it is not always given credit for. I also have more recent examples in both London Underground and contracting organisations.
So, back to the question, ‘Will BIM have any significance in the railways, and if so what impact will it have?’ Yes indubitably. It cannot fail to have significance. BIM is such an integral part of the information management ethos that the industry recognises as important, and strives to achieve, that it becomes a natural fit. And what impact will it have? It will aid the expressed ambition for collaboration. It will aid efficiency in both preconstruction and maintenance. It will ultimately cut costs. There will be fundamental changes in the interaction between the client and the supply chain, which will also extend to a lesser extent into other stakeholders. As adoption accelerates, it will have a tendency to reduce the silo effect and provide better integration between asset groups.
The future may be a single network which can be considered, modelled, and managed as a single integrated interacting complex system as opposed to discrete elements whose reliance’s and interactions have to be guessed by experience or calculated outside of the knowledge management system. By that time we are into ‘Big Data’, and a brave new world.
Serialised push for BIM adoption - CES
Especial thanks go to Darrell Smart and Abigail Tomkins from the Civil Engineering Surveyor, the Journal of the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors. They were involved in the publication of "Is BIM bigger than Latham", including splitting it into three parts and where those splits should be. They and their team improved the article by proofreading, editing, and typesetting, and everything else that goes on, taking a collection of words and transforming it into a coherent publication. The CES articles here are the drafts sent to them not the finished product. The digital copy of the published journal was available as a link for a long time, but the format was Adobe Flash Player, which is no longer supported.
BIM - Where does rail fit in?
BIM - Where does rail fit in?
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on Feb 2013]
Title changed and published as a letter to the Editor, with agreement.
Information Flow, Management and Modelling
Is BIM bigger than Latham? Follow up
Introduction
I have been asked questions about Information Flow, Management and Modelling (IFMaM) and Building Information Modelling (BIM). Currently they resolve into three or four (depending on how you count) core questions;
- How will BIM impact upon the railways,
- Who should own the model,
- Are there opportunities to set up BIM consultancies,
- What will happen to Quantity Surveyors?
These are all very valid and interesting questions which I will attempt to answer, from my own perspective.
How will BIM impact upon the railways?
This question is also put as ‘Will BIM have any significance in the railways?’ I will fuse them to make ‘Will BIM have any significance in the railways, and if so what impact will it have?’ Asking around, I have found that there is little appreciation of BIM in the railway environment generally. It seems to be business as usual. However, being a consultant has some advantages. I am able to see lots of different sides of the industry, from Designer, Contractor, and Client, and get a feel for things that I would otherwise have no knowledge of. I am therefore aware of some of the things going on in the background, which, in this instance, I do not consider to be indiscreet to share with you.
I am very impressed with the efforts London Underground has adopted for the implementation of BIM. It has a dated and budgeted change management programme which has dedicated resources. Those resources are implementing the change to, and adoption of BIM in a controlled and professional manner with due regard for the Government’s requirements of 2016.
I have less information about Network Rail but believe they have a dedicated Director and BIM managers on the major programmes. I am aware that the London Bridge Station Redevelopment has a BIM requirement and that there have been some discussions about undertaking a full 3D survey of Waterloo Station.
So, whilst there may not be a lot of impact on the ground yet, I believe that it will become a lot more prevalent very soon. When it does, I think it will be part of an integrated solution. Not just BIM as a standalone product, just there to be compliant with the government’s requirement for a maturity level 2 by 2016.
Let me reminisce for a while. During the late 1990’s and into the start of 2000’s there were a number of initiatives that I was fortunate enough to be involved with, generally as a committee member. Thinking back, the first of any relevance was the Y2K programme. This started out as being part of the preparations for the ‘millennium bug’. It also included a review of all of Railtrack’s Access databases and data holding Spreadsheets. These were catalogued, reviewed, and categorised into Business Critical, Business Significant, and another, the name of which escapes me at the moment, followed by ‘not required’. A lot of duplication was found, even at Business Critical level. Corporate risk was reduced by identifying the Business Critical and Significant data depositories and actively managing them. Efficiencies were gained by comparing the duplicate solutions and picking the best practice example and adopting it, or occasionally combining a number of solutions to provide the best single solution. The result was the adoption of single solutions across the company with dedicated management to ensure the robustness (reliability and availability) of the BC&BS products.
A further development of the Y2K was the rationalisation of the asset databases. I sat on the signalling committee. There the structure and codification of the signalling asset was set. The red lens connects to the signal head, the signal post, the cabling, etc, to the control centre or signal box. The same happened for all of the asset categories.
Control and regularisation of data was taking on greater importance than previously.
There may be a few readers that remember the RAR programme. This was the ambitious linking of video to information. At the time it was stretching the capability of the computers, with special kiosks for viewing the output, as the ordinary desktop computers could not handle the data flows. Consider the Great Western Main Line. A special train was fitted with multiple video cameras, forward and side facing on the cab. The train travelled the line and the images processed as video and 3D images. Where available this was augmented with aerial views taken by helicopters following the line searching for equipment hot spots, in a similar fashion to the same process used for National Grid power lines. At the same time Railtrack did a deal with Ordnance Survey regarding the sharing of data. The videos were superimposed onto the relevant map tiles, and connected to the asset database. The result was that you could watch the video, see a piece of equipment at the side of the track, pause the video and find out about the location and details of that asset without leaving the office. Also you could look at a map, and zoom in to a specific location until you could see the assets, their details and the associated video, 3D image, and any photos.
Shortly after RAR, I was involved in RAMP. RAMP was the Railtrack Asset Management Programme. RAMP was a huge change management programme with a budget to match its aspirations. It was about creating the decision making tools of the future. More evidence based and less intuition. As such, part of it was to do with knowledge management and part the management of information. The establishment of MIMS (trade name; Mincom Information Management System rebadged as Maintenance Information Management System for UK railways) as the core Rail Infrastructure Asset Register.
Read more;
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/2004/jan/26/rail-infrastructure-asset-register
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/145/14505.htm
Both the Railtrack Chairman and Tom Windsor, the then Rail Regulator visited the team at King’s Cross Eastside Offices, prior to the change of licence instigated by the Rail Regulator in April 2001.
The adoption of MIMS and the associated task based workflow management ultimately led to Maintenance being taken ‘in house’ by Network Rail’ some years later. RAMP also initiated the change from PMCS, Railtrack’s bespoke financial reporting software, to Oracle.
I could go on reminiscing, but I think suffice to say that there has long been an appetite within the rail industry for information management. An appetite which it is not always given credit for. I also have more recent examples in both London Underground and contracting organisations.
So, back to the question, ‘Will BIM have any significance in the railways, and if so what impact will it have?’ Yes indubitably. It cannot fail to have significance. BIM is such an integral part of the information management ethos that the industry recognises as important, and strives to achieve, that it becomes a natural fit. And what impact will it have? It will aid the expressed ambition for collaboration. It will aid efficiency in both preconstruction and maintenance. It will ultimately cut costs. There will be fundamental changes in the interaction between the client and the supply chain, which will also extend to a lesser extent into other stakeholders. As adoption accelerates, it will have a tendency to reduce the silo effect and provide better integration between asset groups.
The future may be a single network which can be considered, modelled, and managed as a single integrated interacting complex system as opposed to discrete elements whose reliance’s and interactions have to be guessed by experience or calculated outside of the knowledge management system. By that time we are into ‘Big Data’, and a brave new world.
BIM: The first teetering steps
BIM: The first teetering steps
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on March 2014]
So, you have read some articles on BIM, spoken to a few people, perhaps attended a conference. Now it is time to dip the toe in the water, it is time for BIM for Infrastructure.
The assumption is that you are working for an informed Client, with a significant amount of infrastructure work each year, and have the backing of a local senior manager, a decision maker who can make a difference in the local context.
You have been banging on about BIM for the last six months at various levels and forums, such that there is a general awareness, and possibly a few isolated pockets of enthusiasm.
The first thing you need is a BIM strategist, champion, or evangelist. Not somebody to create a new department and an ongoing resource requirement. More a transient resource to help the team get to grip with BIM and to attain the outcomes it wants to achieve, even if the team does not yet know what those outcomes are. The goal must be that BIM is part of the day job, embraced by the team wholeheartedly.
Keep the stabilisers on the bike for the moment.
Choose your pilot project wisely
Pick your pilot project carefully. A great deal will be riding on the overall success of the project. It will be very difficult to sing the praises of BIM on the back of a failed project. Talk can be of how much worse it would have been without BIM, but that is a much more difficult message to sell.
The project needs to be stable and in a healthy, well defined condition.
- It should have passed its last stage gate with flying colours.
- The budget for the project should have been relatively consistent throughout its previous stages of development.
- The business case for the project should be robust and compelling.
- The required outcomes for the project need to have been clearly defined at an early stage, and have remained static throughout the development.
- The project requirements and scope, which will deliver the outcomes, need to be appropriately developed and clearly stated for the current stage of the project.
- It should be a predominantly infrastructure project, which sets it aside from some of the other BIM projects underway, within the Client organisation.
All of the above are indicators of a well thought through project which will not be subject to erratic and unpredictable change. Project scope creep should be avoided! Remember, it is a pilot project that you want to be exemplar. Later, more difficult projects can also benefit from BIM, possibly with even greater impact, but let’s keep the stabilisers on the bike for the moment.
The project should also be large enough to be able to absorb, what is effectively research and development costs, or learning curve costs, without significantly impacting upon the business case for the project. It should also be complex enough not to provide ammunition to the detractors of BIM. An indicative project AFC (Anticipated Final Cost) above £50m would suit.
Equally important, nay, more so, is the project team. After all is said and done, it must be the team that embraces BIM and wants to make it a success. The whole team need to be accepting of change, want innovation, have a desire to excel, be pioneers, and have an inherent desire to be the best. The team includes, in no particular order, the Project Manager, commercial, planning, engineering, construction, health & safety, environment and sustainability. The wider team, not just the core full time staff! Can there be any room for naysayers? Probably not, not for the pilot project.
Can there be any room for naysayers?
Budget for BIM
Having chosen your target project, based on the project health and the team that will run it, it is necessary to ensure that the project estimate, and therefore the project authority and budget, have sufficient allowance to fund the BIM activities. It is difficult to advise how much to include. However, it is always difficult to get approval to spend money, on a coordination room for instance, if there is insufficient budget. It is normal to experience difficulty in persuading management to spend money, to potentially, either save money, or to make more profit. It is an easier passage where budget already exists.
- However, do not be tempted into running a full benefit analysis for BIM. When BIM is working properly, the majority of the cost will be impossible to extract from normal operations, because it will be normal operations. There will be specific costs such as IT hardware and software, which can be captured separately. There are also two specialist resources, an Information Manager and a Federated Model Co-ordinator, which can also be cost allocated to BIM. On the benefit side, you could spend time estimating the savings of clashes avoided, or changes that are identified early. However, the bigger savings of collaboration, the parties working together, construction right first time are hard to demonstrate definitively. The best demonstrable benefit is the comparison of the Actual Outturn Cost against the AFC. The soft comparison is how the stakeholders feel about the project. Smiles all round.
Client led
The Client, as an informed client, should lead the process of change and should own and operate the federated BIM model. There has been a lot of discussion on this element of BIM. The Client is in the best position to influence the adoption of BIM and to take on the associated risks. The Client may not be the best informed in respect to BIM within the supply chain, but as the head of the supply chain, the Client, with broad shoulders, needs to initiate and drive forward.
A quick recap
We have a healthy Infrastructure Project, with a change receptive project team, supported by a BIM strategist. The project has a budget allocation for BIM, authority for BIM, and senior management support. Ideal!
The seed has been planted. The next challenge is to get it to germinate.
The BIM challenge
The BIM challenge is frequently seen as what software to adopt. It is however so much more.
- What information do we have?
- What information do we need to pass on, and how?
- Who is going to use ‘the stuff’?
- What is collaboration?
- Who needs to be involved?
- How do we do whatever it is?
- What Tech do we need?
Missing from the list is the most significant element of the challenge, people! Their behaviours, resistance to change, etc.
The pie is just a visualisation, but gives an idea of the scale of the challenge. Information flow and codification is the second biggest slice. The biggest slice is the change in practices, workflow, and behaviours, all people issues
Looking briefly at each of the four heads separately
There is a vast choice of technology surrounding BIM.
- Our BIM strategy states that the design software should be the choice of the designer of the particular discipline or element. (best for task)
- We will own and operate the data via a Client Information Manager and we will control the federated collaboration 5D model
- The 5D model requires a data repository to handle the non-visual elements
- Our base EDMS will be selected by the Client and be a requirement within the tender(s) and subsequent contract(s)
- The hardware requirements for a mission control room, cloud connected. Interfaces with requirements and deliverables / workflow management
Information flow is crucial.
- Survey data and Asset information into the model
- Manage the information flow throughout the intervention
- Manage the collaboration and data exchange
- Create codification that supports industry standards, including Uniclass 2, SIC 2007, Asset Information, Asset Register database, appropriate method of measurements, all allowing efficient benchmarking, comparison, collation, and transfer of information.
- Transfer of the whole information on to Maintenance, Operations, Asset Information and Archive in a meaningful, useful way
Who understands what BIM is and the opportunities that it provides? We need to inform and educate at different levels.
- Ensure that end users such as Maintenance, Asset Information, and Operations understand the benefits/how it is useful to them
- Communicate to the intervention (Project) client and sponsor, and wider stakeholder community
- Educate the Project Team and associated engineering, procurement, risk and value management, safety, and sustainability (not forgetting Legacy) support
- Retain senior management support with briefings and newsletters, and generally spread the word in an evangelical way
The biggest challenge is the behaviours change required in the whole of the Project Team, associated support, Supply Chain, Client, Sponsor, Maintenance, Asset Information, Operations and other key stakeholders.
- Collaboration is key
- How do we achieve cultural change?
- What support can we draw on?
- It will not happen on its own!
This represents a significant challenge, almost a project in its own right.
A significant challenge, almost a project in its own right.
BIM strategy
The BIM strategist will write a BIM strategy for the project as a precursor to a BIM Execution Plan. The strategy will state the desired outcomes, level of detail, levels of development, stakeholder responsibilities. Importantly, the strategy will list what is required of the federated model, including information for the contractor(s) such as dividing a concrete slab into pours with construction joints and formwork. The federated model should not be just the domain of the designer. It should provide something for all the stakeholders using it. The strategy will also state that the 3D BIM model, formed of intelligent elements, shall include 4D, time, 5D, cost, and carbon. The codification shall include universal standards such as Uniclass 2 and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) together with Asset based structure to enhance Asset Maintenance and Operations.
The strategy shall treat the project as an intervention upon an asset where the asset has a whole life and the intervention is one of many predicted within the whole life of the asset, and where each intervention has a lifecycle of its own. Each intervention will add information to the model and thereby provide enhanced information with which to manage the asset. At this point it is worth remembering that BIM is all about information. Not only graphical information, but includes non-graphical information and documentation as well.
The strategy will be circulated for agreement within the Client. It is understood that further details will be provided in the BIM Execution Plan.
Cultural Change Management Concept
Part of the BIM strategy incorporates the concept that cultural change management shall be progressive, predominantly by the ripple effect.
- Start with a small pebble into the pond. Engage the project team.
- A larger stone, wider involvement within the Client.
- A half brick, include the Outline Designer
- A full brick, include the Supply Chain
- And onward until the ripples reach the furthest edges of the pond.
This will help both understanding and change.
BIM is not suitable for Big Bang or flick a switch type implementations.
Procurement
Include the concept of the project being a BIM project within the Procurement Strategy.
The Procurement Strategy should make best use of the forthcoming BIM driven changes to EU Procurement Rules. The selection of potential tenderers should include an element of BIM capability. The Procurement Strategy should also state that the tender evaluation will include, as a minimum, 15% collaboration, and 5% BIM.
The tenderers should also be advised of the intent to provide the tenderers with a complete federated 3D BIM model with take-off capability, in addition to the conventional contractual drawings. The probability of resolving all of the arguments, and discussions surrounding liabilities and responsibilities during the pilot project procurement round are so remote as to be, not only, not worth attempting, but would in all probability be distracting and detracting.
Federated BIM model for tendering
Form a club
The next step is to form a club. Above we have identified that part of the measure of success is that BIM will be for all parties. It is therefore a logical progression that those same parties configure the BIM requirements. Ideally the club should be formed of Client, Surveyor, Designer, Contractor(s) Maintenance, Operations, and Asset Information. The club should also include particular Client individuals, including the Project Manager, the BIM strategist, the Information Manager, and the Federated Model Coordinator.
The club can then lead the charge on BIM, inform and educate, create the structure and codification, develop the BIM requirements and generally set the scene, all in accordance with the strategy and best practice.
It is essential that all the members of the club are informed and enthusiastic about BIM. Without the enthusiasm the pilot project will not find its way to the exemplary target.
The club will have to be funded by the client and have very few responsibilities and therefore few liabilities. All of the various members of the club should therefore be able to learn from each other, and be able to contribute to the common goal without fear or favour. The non-client based members of the club would be contributing on a consultant basis, probably time based, without acquiring any additional liabilities by virtue of contributions to the club. The club is there to develop the BIM configuration to suit as many of the parties requirements as possible. There are some problems with the implementation of this, such as the Contractor is not yet selected, therefore you should avoid using one of the potential tenderers. A contractor competent in the particular field and recognised for BIM adoption could provide Early Contractor Involvement and BIM advice without falling foul of EU Procurement rules. All of the members of the club would be working together for the common benefit of the Project and the Asset Manager.
Is this collaboration?
Good luck to the club.
BIM and big
BIM and Big
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on May 2014]
We have talked about the first teetering steps, but where are the steps leading to.
BIM is frequently considered at a single project level, which is totally understandable for a discrete building, a new build for a single client. Perhaps it is the only building for that client. BIM can easily make an impact, used from the very conception of the project, through detailed design and construction and on into maintenance of the building and facilities management.
The next significant intervention will hopefully be an extension (not demolition) where the BIM model can be resurrected and dusted off, ready for reuse. There are some problems with this concept though. One is the CIC BIM Protocol seems to preclude such ongoing use. However, there are more fundamental issues. The BIM model obviously is more than just the 3D graphic image, there is all the information and data attached to it. Is that information still valid? For the initial project we gathered all sorts of new and old data together to inform the design. That data became part of the BIM model. Following construction a Health and Safety file was produced, BIM style.
Is there a process for keeping the initial information up to date, if not it becomes tired very quickly. The time is soon upon us that the data is considered unreliable and should therefore be discounted. This is a sad loss of a significant amount of knowledge. Never mind, let us re-invent the wheel again.
BIM for Infrastructure
However, BIM when applied to infrastructure has slightly different imperatives. It is still BIM and it still has rich digital data in the form of documents, digital information, and non-digital information.
The infrastructure may be in linear form such as a road, railway, or pipeline. There will be a maintenance programme in place to manage the infrastructure.
Back to the railway analogies.
What is an asset? A nut that forms part of the clamp, a fishplate, holding two lengths of rail together? A pad that the rail sits on? A bridge? A station? Or the whole network. Answers on a postcard. An asset is all of the above, form the smallest separate item through to the whole network. All of the assets have to perform together for the network, or system, to perform as planned.
Given that we have a collection of assets that form a route, part of the network, there has to be a plan as to how to manage those assets such that the route is available for use. There is, with the possible exception of roads, a direct economic construct between the maintenance of the assets forming the route and the availability of the route to earn money.
Without delving into theories on RAM, RAMS, RAMSS, or PRAMS, and asset degradation curves, and asset performance curves, for the route to be available the asset has to be maintained. Asset management becomes an imperative. (RAM; Reliability, Availability, Maintainability. RAMS, plus Safety. RAMSS; plus Security, or PRAMS; Performance.)
The route asset management plan will, of course have concepts of planned, reactive, and emergency interventions. The planned interventions may well be considered as Large Interventions, Medium Interventions, and Small Interventions. Large and Medium Interventions may well be considered as projects.
A possible exception to having an asset management plan is if you are so underfunded that the imperative is reduced to just keeping the asset running. Condition led reactive maintenance. Is this actually a prudent way to operate an asset though, is it either cost effective or safe. Let’s consider a car. Save money by not having it serviced. Saved money today, and tomorrow, only pay out when it breaks down. However, when it breaks down it is more expensive and more inconvenient. What about if that breakdown is because the break fluid has not been changed, because you skipped the service. The breaks go soft, you can’t stop in time, that’s an accident. I am not convinced that this is a viable option.
Let’s consider an enhancement driven large intervention. A Project. It is of course a BIM project. Focusing on the Information part of BIM. The project starts by gathering as much information about the existing asset as it can find. It searches for information on buried services, carries out ground investigations and topographical surveys. It commissions environmental surveys and researches the local area, SSI and heritage information. The topographical surveys may include aerial LiDAR, ground laser, traditional, precision, and physical gauges. Point clouds surveys with millions of points and millions of photographs. Some of the surveys will be repeated at different stages through the project lifecycle.
It soon becomes apparent that BIM, or PIM when only dealing with the project element is growing fast.
Also add the breakdown structures, multi-layered in a (n=9) dimensional Matrix, nD, mentioned in an earlier article.
- Asset
- Cost
- Location
- Procurement
- Work
- Interventions
- Resource
- Organisation
- And, of course, time
Then add parameters and complexities, at component level and up to project level, there is a lot of information.
All of this just at a single project level.
We also have a concept of Asset State Intervention Type (ASIT) with the following states;
- Operational
- Steady State Maintenance
- Condition improvement
- Enhancement
- New
- Redundant
How to sort this muddle
‘Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into’, to use somebody else’s catch phase. BIM is about information, but there is so much of it, in so many different ways. How can we possibly sort this muddle out? For one project, we will cope, because that is what we do. BIM will help provide some structure and discipline. Having a common data environment will require a common codification and some boxes to put all this information in.
Data collection has to be operational and proportional. It has to have a purpose. All well and good having huge amounts of paper files, but if all they do is sit in an archive box, in a nice temperature controlled warehouse, they serve little purpose. The same applies to digital information, except it is on a server, in a climate controlled environment.
So what happens at route level? We have established the need for asset management. All projects will have the same codification system. This will make them comparable. We will put all of the information from the projects into a relational database. Using BIM on projects well make this easier.
We will be able to interrogate the data using SQL. That will retrieve the information that we require. Provided we have a few people feeding the relational database, devising additional relationships, and maintaining the database, all will be well. Oh, we will need specialists to be able to create reports as well. Not open access I’m afraid.
One project becomes many. Lots of data and information quickly becomes huge amounts of data, and not unsurprising less information. The people required to handle all of that data grew to become a small army. The return on investment of that army diminished as it became more difficult to extract information from the data sets. Approaching, collecting data for the sake of data, information and knowledge lost.
If this is a probable outcome at route level after a small number of years, what of multiple routes.
The whole network is in excess of 20,000 miles, with millions of paper, negative, and cloth drawings and documents. Perhaps even the odd piece of parchment. The amount of data becomes incomprehensibly large. Every time a project is completed and the BIM data stack added to the whole information stack the system creaks. Not enough resources to manage the data. It takes so long to recover the data that it seems quicker to gather the information afresh at the beginning of the project.
Devolve the Information
The central information stack is about to fail. It is too expensive to run, does not run properly, does not give real-time information. It is no longer fit for purpose.
Solution, devolve the data and information. Take it down to route level. This will make it more manageable. Or will it. Whole data set analysis will become more difficult. Trend analysis of asset performance and establishing reliable asset degradation curves becomes much more difficult. Time to get out the spreadsheet again.
Failure looms.
There are now multiple armies of data collectors, analysts, and report writers. Lots of data but not much information getting out. Next step, cut the amount of data that we collect and retain. Discard most of it. Not exactly the rich digital sharing world we were promised with information based decision tools.
That is not the way forward.
The Asset is the backbone of our rich digital environment. Add GIS and you have your core data set.
I have just done a search in Google (other search engines are available) for TED and at the top it told me About 91,000,000 results (0.31 seconds). The top result was TED: Ideas worth spreading, which is exactly what I was looking for. (An excellent site by the way.) Those 91m sites don’t all sit in a central database. Nor do they have a common coding structure. It is all random data pulled together in real time at point of enquiry. All in less than a second.
This is how to deal with the problem of having so much digital data that it cannot be efficiently handled using traditional methods.
This is BIG DATA.
And with BIG Data come BIG Data Analytics, and Data Mining, and Data Scientists, and real information at your fingertips.
Aside -----
The volume of data is growing at a freighting rate. Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt brings it to a point: “From the dawn of civilization until 2003, humankind generated five exabytes of data. Now we produce five exabytes every two days…and the pace is accelerating.” Extract from BIG data; the mega trend that will impact all our lives. Also see Techonomy report in Tech Crunch.com
BIM: Engage with the supply chain
BIM: Engage with the supply chain
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on July/August 2014]
Previously I have discussed
- ‘Is BIM bigger than Latham?, - Information flow, management and modelling; Parts 1, 2, & 3’,
- ’BIM – Where does rail fit in?’,
- ‘BIM: The first teetering steps’ and
- ‘BIM and BIG’
Within ‘BIM: The first teetering steps’ there was mention of forming a ‘club’. This was part of the engagement with the supply chain. This engagement now needs to widen. The ripple has to travel further to more people. Throw in a bigger stone.
It starts with discussing BIM, its implementation and the implications with individual design houses. However, this has limitations in respect of time, rate of spreading the ripple, and the impact of collaborative change.
Instead of one at a time, a better more collaborative approach is to have a supplier forum. The ‘club’ includes Surveyor, Designer, and Contractor as part of the supply chain. This is a reasonable consist for the supplier forum. Initially look to the supply chain to express an interest in attending a forum about BIM in each of the disciplines, perhaps starting with the design houses.
Natural reticence, commercial advantage
It is to be expected that such a group of companies, sharing the same service offering, to the same client, with a finite amount of available work, would have a natural reticence to talk openly about BIM and thereby potentially lose some commercial advantage. However, the converse is true. The ability and willingness to share ideas and good practice with their competitors and their client is demonstrating behaviour to be valued. The client, even an informed client, although accepted as being the driving force and leader for the implementation of BIM, is not the sole source of good ideas and experience. The supply chain has a lot to offer and the client should take advantage of this in a collaborative manner within the constraints of having an enterprise wide common data environment and an asset based backbone for the information stack to be built around.
A collection of good minds, working together generally produces a better result than a single good mind working in isolation. The overall vision has to be maintained but the steps, and the detail is subject to flux.
After successfully completing a number of meetings with the separate disciplines it is time to go for the leap to the next horizon, bring all the disciplines together under the same roof. You will remember that our BIM strategy includes the concept that everyone involved gets a benefit. To understand how this can be achieved it is best to bring all the players together. The individually developed BIM solutions can then be tested and refined by the whole cast. If you go to the theatre the play generally is better with the cast interacting together, albeit in some films they do manage to construct a finished product with some cast members being in different parts of the world, but with a degree of difficulty.
If that is the end game why not start with everybody together? That is relatively simple to answer. It will be sufficiently difficult to get an open conversation and a consensus of opinion with a group of individual discipline companies. Starting together will make the whole process exponentially more difficult and time consuming.
Even approaching it separately as described is not without its difficulties, and is not guaranteed to be a universal success.
Not just BIM
The supply forums should not be limited just to BIM.
Part of our BIM strategy includes requirements management, possibly in a software product called DOORS. Having a clearly defined output, such as capacity enhancement, which is in turn linked to explicit requirements and deliverables, creates a clear scope. This is an important success factor for any project, including a BIM project.
Having a set of individual requirements in a set system allows for the supply chain to verify and validate the fulfilment of those individual requirements. If all of the individual requirements are met, and they properly link to the output, then it is self-evident that the project should be considered complete.
There appears to be an appetite within the supply chain for progressive self-assurance. This links well with the adoption of BIM and requirements management. When you board a plane, or a plane manufacture bolts a Rolls Royce engine to his plane, you don’t take the engine apart to check that it has been designed and built correctly. Equally true when you buy a new car. We should use the benefits of BIM implementation to move towards a more factory type construction model. One of the long held comments about infrastructure construction is that each project is unique, unlike house building or factory manufacture. However, with BIM you have the opportunity to build the project several times, in a virtual environment, until you are happy you can build the project safely, right first time. This provides significant efficiencies and cost savings that far outweigh the investment and time spent.
More from BIM at the start
We should not consider BIM to be something that starts towards the end of the design process, using traditional tools to begin the project. BIM should start life as the project is conceived. A high level concept project, with a high level BIM model, including time, cost and carbon. That way, as the project develops and inevitably changes, the model changes in detail and in scope, recording all of the changes as it progresses. With discipline all of the reasons for change can also be recorded. Particularly safe by design decisions.
By including time (time impacts cost) and cost an estimate of the anticipated final cost (AFC) can be maintained throughout the development of the project. This should obviously include an appreciation into whole life cost impact of the project. Thereby maintaining a near real time review of return on investment (ROI) and impact on business case (BC), and on affordability and efficiency. The affordability and efficiency being measured against benchmarking information. Design to a budget.
Consider a designer is given a loose brief to design a new station. Funding is primarily from an external source dependent upon successful land release for subsequent development. The designer interprets the loose brief and designs a high tech, green, potentially award winning station. The drawings are given to the QS team once all of the drawings are approved, several months after design commenced. Weeks later the project team are advised that the estimated cost of the station is £40m. This causes a considerable amount of ‘discussion’. Subsequently, it becomes apparent that there is only £20m in the budget for the station. Accordingly, the design is completely reworked before being submitted for approval again. Then back to the QS team for re-pricing. Even assuming that the budget was achieved in one iteration, it still amounts to over a year in delays and considerable cost and inefficiency. All of this could have been avoided by designing to a budget as described above.
This technique would eradicate the inefficiencies of design, approve and estimate as firmly sequential activities.
For some companies this will involve a change to their business model. There are not many manufactures of steam traction engines, or three wheel cars, or turbo-prop by-plane passenger aeroplanes. The list goes on, we must all change with the times, or fade.
No prize
There should not be an intrinsic prize at the end of this process. No promise of work or inclusion in an approved list, or non-inclusion. Doing so would inevitably change behaviours and revert to the more natural completion between competitors, thereby degrading the collaboration effort.
There is of course the real prize of a massively improved industry, working together, effectively, efficiently, and importantly, collaboratively. This will manifest itself in the realisation of the benefits of BIM. Everybody’s a winner. As long as you get on board of course!
BIM and BIG
This applies to any part of the infrastructure construction industry, where there is a network of assets to be maintained in the long term. The road network, the rail network, water and waste pipes and drains, and gas and electrical transmission grids. The individual interventions accumulate into a huge information stack over time and you start to get statistical data on really important information such as asset degradation curves, asset performance curves, and mean time between failures. Such rich digital data complements the concept of risk based inspection and maintenance, where inspection frequency increases as the assets predicted end of life approaches, allowing the asset to be replaced in a planned intervention at an appropriate time. All as outlined in BIM and BIG.
BIM: Driving internal change
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)
BIM gets bigger
BIM gets bigger
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on October 2014]
We know of BIM as Building Information Modelling and recognise the function of the 3D Model and the importance of Information Management. I recently heard the Building word described as a verb, which could therefore be equally replaced with creating or developing Information Modelling, or perhaps Management.
Irrespective of what BIM is called it is about people, information, process, codification, and technology, in that order. With people being the largest proportion, at about 70%. The people element includes the training in new technology and new process, but more importantly the cultural change to make the working day better, for almost everyone involved. Then add the collaboration element.
BIM at a single project level now incorporates change to the management of the supply change, and significant revision to the relevant procurement strategy. The contract and commercial departments have to adopt different approaches, especially with respect to change. All the information is shared and available to all. There is no hiding place, no muddy waters. The planning department now has information about rate of construction, or outputs directly from the model, so all of the work is accounted for. They can therefore concentrate on the sequence of works, ensuring that the floor supporting the wall is built before the wall, and that can be checked using the visualisations of BIM 4D. The estimators can have the quantity take-off finished in minutes rather than weeks, or months. Link that take-off to a rates database and you have near instant estimating. Of course the estimator’s skill then needs to be applied to the rates to account for particular complexities and parameters. This ability in turn leads to the concept of design to a budget. All without huge amounts of rework. The quantity surveyor can create valuations and forecasts from the model, together with cost to complete. Progress can be monitored in 3D using the model and site cams. The designer can create option reports with meaningful cost and programme considerations, together with informed decisions regarding ‘safety by design’, whole life costs, and carbon footprint. The Engineering Assurance team can become involved progressively and contribute collaboratively during the currency of the design instead of sequentially. Nobody enjoys getting a surprise present on a Friday afternoon of 300 paper drawings dropped on their desk, for checking within 14 days. Better to be involved and sign off to the 3D model you have seen develop. Not forgetting the safety benefits of visualisations at your desk instead of a visit to site.
Before we leave BIM at project level, there are all of those diverse surveys to consider. LiDar, Topographical, Arial, Drones, Gauge Clearance, mounted Laser, hand held laser, Setting Out robots, and what might be called As-Built robots. Robots that check the position and orientation of elements as they are constructed to ensure they are within tolerance, and then updates the model with the as-built data. It is all a long way from a chain, an Inver tape, a dumpy level and a 20” theodolite. We now have a point cloud with RGB and photos attached. Add a touch or augmented reality and are we into science fiction.
We have previously talked about joining all this information together across time and space, along the liner asset. But there is still more to come from this BIM thing.
Add all the asset information, and create the basis of the Asset Management tools to feed you AM strategy and plan. Suddenly you have PAS 1192.3 and BSI 55 compliant process and enough information to create Performance by RAMS, Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Safety (and Security}. It is not really that simple, but at least there is the beginning of the information required to develop.
So we have project BIM, and then programme BIM, added together to provide Network Models and Asset Management. Surely it can’t get any bigger.
Yes it can, then start to link in, and merge GIS. The whole world of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) starts to open the horizons. You may use the GIS data to assess population structure and demographic prior to using predictive analysis to assess growth potential. Then link this to passenger growth to assess and demonstrate enhanced capacity requirements. You establish you need a four track railway again, which had been reduced to two track in the period of low usage. The feasibility mode interacts to establish if three tracks will provide the required capacity, or if four necessary. Four it is then.
Extent that thought into ‘Smart Cities’ and whole country transport policy, and perhaps you have HS2. And HS3, 4, and 5. Another scenario is using the GIS data pertaining to weather to predict future resilience of the Network and to plan ongoing protection measures. It is all about the information, how we collect it, structure it and use it together, in a joined up intelligent manner, to the benefit of People.
Joining the dots, and the ones, on a massive scale. Part on the information revolution. Part of the revolution we are engaged in.
BIM - The importance of procurement
BIM - The importance of procurement
[Published in Civil Engineering Surveyor (CES) on December 2015/ January 2016]
BIM - The importance of procurement on CES digital player
7 October 2015
The essentials of BIM centric project procurement
Congratulations, pats on the back all round, we have managed to nurture our infrastructure Capex project through the trials and tribulations of the stage gate process from inception to the point where we are preparing to tender the Main Contract. What a great relief, we have achieved authority and have funding. Lets go and bag ourselves a contractor.
Stop.
We need to go back a few stage gates and question how we got through them. The stage gates match the digital plan of works, and we have developed the project using a 3D BIM model from the outset. We started with a HD LIDAR survey with photos to create the base model. We planted that on the earth with real coordinates using snake grid. We used GIS to inform decisions and integrated BIM and GIS. What's more we set up a very early requirements management system to ensure we kept focused on the deliverables of the project at each stage. The requirements became more detailed as the project progressed through the digital plan of works in a similar fashion to the BIM LOD and LOI. The V & V followed suit.
Why all this introspection? We had satisfied the local approval panel at every stage, without even one conditional pass or referred action. The reason becomes apparent when we are told that an External Expert Panel (EEP) has been convened to report on the health of the project. The EEP is commissioned by, and reports to the main Board. They can overturn anything or everything at the stroke of a pen. Years of work down the drain at the end of a six week review. Hopefully not, but possibly. This is serious stuff. We are briefed by someone who has been through one of these before. Some people try to be difficult and think that they can hide things, he tells us. If you don't cooperate they will not find the skeletons, will give up and give a clean bill of health. Not so he says, they actually do know what they are talking about, and know where to to find the evidence. Each one of them is on over a thousand a day. They know. Take that route at your peril! His recommended route was to cooperate fully providing everything they ask for plus a lot more. Volunteering any skeletons and how they were dealt with or buried.
The EEP has a process which involves reviewing the subject project in the following segments;
- Strategy and Scope
- Governance and Stakeholders
- Funding
- Resources
- Procurement and Commercial
- Legal and Consents
- Engineering and Technical
- Business Impact and Criticality
- Project and Programme Management
Procurement is our concern here.
The EEP asks for evidence about how we have procured and how we intend to procure future elements of the supply chain, together with any draft and approved Procurement Strategy documents. What, this is normally the time for writing the Procurement Strategy, just before going out to Tender. You write the strategy at the same time as preparing the ITT. Well, that may be normal, but not us we think smugly. We had commissioned a BIM Strategist at the beginning of the project to assist in making it a BIM centric project. We had a BIM Strategy written to include all stages, and all aspects of the project. The BIM strategy included dealing with 1192 compliance, technology, codification, process, and behaviours as you would expect. It also set out requirements for early Communication and Procurement Strategies to be written. It is not sufficient just to write the strategies either, they have to be actively implemented.
It is important to understand that the Communications and Procurement Strategies are intrinsically linked, we explained to the EEP. From the very outset of engaging with the enemy, there has to be a demonstration of intent. For a start, it is not engaging with the enemy, or even the supply chain. To use an old fashioned phrase, it is more like 'courting'. You are looking for a supplier with whom you wish to engage for many years in a mutually beneficial, rewarding, and acceptable relationship. Your potential suppliers are no longer champing at the bit to get into bed with you at any cost. The majority have become much more selective. This is a better situation for both parties. Mutual respect from the outset provides for a better long term relationship. It is no longer a case of kids lined around the walls of the assembly hall at the school dance, hopefully waiting for almost any other kid to approach them, talk to them, or if they were really lucky dance with them. They are more picky these days, more selective. So are our potential suppliers, and why shouldn't they be. Appreciative of good clients and wary of poor ones. Relationships are important, and it starts with how you procure your suppliers.
How do you convince your potential suppliers that you are a good client that really means to implement BIM on the project. By being a good employer, creating a good working environment for happy contented employees to work, to grow, and to embrace change. We shared the communication strategy with the EEP and provided evidence that we had done the same to our potential suppliers. Yes, even at the very early stage of the project, prior to the appointment of a designer. We discussed the philosophy behind the decision to share with the EEP. Sharing such an important internal document helps build trust, and helps demonstrate intent. Before you can launch into a BIM project with a supplier you have to have at least commenced the Cultural Change process within your own business.
This is where the importance of the Communication Strategy becomes apparent. It obviously contains the basics of raising awareness, informing, educating and engagement, so that everyone understands BIM and its implications. It has a section on training and support. Importantly it also has a section on Cultural Change Management. It is not just about teaching people how to do their job properly and ensuring that they do so. It is more than that. It includes the underlying behaviours. Not just about competency but includes aptitude and behaviour. How you and the team interact with each other and the immediate internal stakeholders. This is a precursor to how we react to and engage with external stakeholders, irrespective of whether close or distant, important or peripheral. The Communication Strategy does not have to be completed beginning to end before starting on the implementation of the Procurement Strategy. They work hand in hand and should be implemented concurrently, but with a lag. You need to have defined achievement points in the Communication Strategy which allow you to proceed with particular areas of the Procurement Strategy. Without the links you could easily become out of sync and ahead of yourself and the team's competency, understanding, and ability. The idea is that you and your partner develop and grow together, and it is irrelevant which of you are the most advanced in your BIM implementation. The EEP confirmed she had seen enough on that subject. We quietly thought of the brownie points earned.
The design package
The EU Procurement Rules appear to present some problems when considering a BIM centric project. One of the ideas is to have long term relationships so avoiding the inevitable loss of knowledge and understanding every time the project is thrown over the proverbial wall. The data structure reduces the loss of information, but knowledge still suffers. How do you let a design package in a very early part of the digital plan of work, without falling foul of the EU Rules? We explained how we had coped with this difficulty.
One of the prerequisites we wanted from our initial feasibility study was that whoever did the work, it was an informed, and thorough piece of work. It was, and still is our opinion, that no valid conclusion can be derived from an engineering or design solution in isolation. The feasibility study has to be holistic in both its approach and breadth. Accordingly we expected the conclusion to include build ability, construction and operational health and safety, environmental, stakeholder impact, cost, time, operation, and use considerations as well as the traditional design. We were lucky in our search to find that a limited number of potential suppliers had looked at their business model, and revised it to be more all encompassing, either directly or with selected partners. This, therefore, was part of the pre-selection criteria. It provided a very limited pool, but sufficient. Hopefully others will follow suit.
The tender period of two weeks is a dead concept. Even six weeks for an early stage of the digital plan of works is too short. The longer you give someone to familiarise and understand something, the less they will perceive to be unknown. Unknowns become risks, which in turn become additional cost in the tender price. Unnecessary and avoidable price inflation. We showed the EEP that we started with a ten week tender period but had provision to extend this to fifteen weeks without adversely impacting the programme. The whole procurement process has to be outcome driven not programme driven. Achieving arbitrary dates and deadlines to the detriment of quality and success is nonsensical and counterproductive, emergencies excepted.
The tender period was preceded by a supply chain briefing. During the tender period there were three programmed Q&A sessions, some joint and some with individual tenders.
To reinforce this position we explicitly state that BIM should not be priced separately and that no payment will be made for BIM or for any changes to BIM as we develop together.
We are however getting ahead of ourselves. What was in the ITT. There was a very prominent and clear intent to operate the project collaboratively, jointly, fairly, openly, and transparently. We stated our role in achieving this goal. Whilst we were generally compliant with the requirements of BS1192 and PAS1192 we did move away in terms of codification and the requirements for the tenderer to create the BEP during the tender period so as to be part of the tender assessment. We did not want to exclude suppliers who had the desired behaviours and attributes but did not have extensive BIM experience. We also consider that the BEP should be developed together, during the paid part of the relationship. We also left some parts of the EIR as 'to be agreed collaboratively post contract'. It used to be that an agreement to agree in a contract document was a waste of ink and paper but apparently the Supreme Court now supports the concept provided there is clear intent so to do. The EIR was derived from the Government's template but adapted to sit in a requirements management software package with the same concepts of progressively more detail, but always linked back to the fundamental requirements of the project. Being in a requirements package also provides a structure for the validation and verification, thereby adopting best practice, and importantly the same process for both BIM requirements and normal contract requirements and specifications. Whilst we acknowledge that currently BIM is novel and perhaps something of a fad, and therefore requires a degree of special treatment, this is not the long term position. BIM should become so much part of the day job to be almost unnoticed and automatic. To reinforce this position we explicitly state that BIM should not be priced separately and that no payment will be made for BIM or for any changes to BIM as we develop together. BIM shall be included in the rates similar to any other overhead items. We consider that BIM is free at point of sale. That way nobody can say let's save £x by omitting the BIM item. If you can't see the value earned, it becomes more difficult to seek to justify the futile attempt to separate and collate the costs allegedly attributed to the adoption of BIM. If done properly it should be all pervasive and the costs inseparable. Furthermore, why should there be a price/cost to the Client. The premise is that all parties save money when BIM is implemented properly.
Which brings us nicely to the form of Contract incorporated into the ITT. It is counterproductive to use an adversarial form of contract when you want to work collaboratively together and share the learning and savings together.
Let's tell you a little about the EEP. It is chaired by a lead investigator, who is also responsible for the final report, and ensuring that it has a consistent style and flow. Then there are the subject investigators which tend to interview in pairs. We assume they compare notes afterwards. They are all supported by a project manager and a team organiser, which leaves the team able to focus on its primary objective of understanding enough about the scheme under review to be able to come to a conclusion as to whether or not it is fit to proceed, and to provide a coherent report evidencing and supporting that assertion. In this particular case, the two procurement subject investigators, were a man and a woman. Both very sharp with a very detailed knowledge of procurement, our type of project, and people. A rare combination.
We digress, our interviewers have heard enough about that particular area. Going back to the ITT we said that we had used the CIC BIM protocol to amend the normal Conditions of Contract so as to merge BIM into the heart of the contract. However, the protocol did not get incorporated unscathed. We made some amendments which we considered necessary for the benefit of both or either party, but clearly showed them as amendment. Trust and transparency again. From a BIM perspective the ITT included the CIC BIM Protocol, the EIR, the BS1192 and PAS1192 requirements together with BS11000, and of course the BIM Model as it stood at that time. The three elements of a BIM model, and no paper drawings, extracted as slices of the 3D element of the BIM model.
We provided as much information about the project, it's potential impacts, benefits, risks and opportunities, as we had, not just as much as we thought they needed. Again trust and transparency. We even provided our initial Business Case. Corporate Governance precluded us from providing our budget or pre-tender estimate. Over kill with the information, perhaps, but better to share than to leave something out. The amount of information is also, in part, the reason for the extended tender period. If you provide all of the information but no time to read and assimilate it, you are creating another risk not eliminating one. More cost. Obviously we provided the scoring matrix to be used in the tender assessment within the ITT. It was purposely left at a high level as we did not want to write the responses for them. There were some surprises though. The Price was less than 50% of the available marks, post tenderer interview 3%, and behaviour was 15%. Having a post tender interview which you cannot allow to be incorporated into the decision as to who is awarded the work seems a little strange. Behaviour is such an important part of the collaborative BIM environment that it seemed appropriate to demonstrate it. Dates for the two day behaviour assessment workshops were also included within the ITT with strict instructions that the attendees must ultimately be part of the winners project team. We explained to the EEP why we thought it was so important, and what impact we thought it would have on the tenderers and the tender prices. Another tick in the box, we hoped.
The main contract package
We had been successful with the procurement of the design package and were very satisfied with our ultimate selection. We had learnt a lot about BIM and collaboration with the design team and told the EEP that we would incorporate that experience to tweak some aspects of the ITT, but otherwise adopt the same strategy for the letting of the main contract. Create the trust, and the price goes down. Keep the trust, operate it as a BIM centric project with transparency, fairness, and openness and the price stays down. Everybody benefits.
Fiction
Unfortunately this is a work of fiction insofar as it has a storyline. However I hope that it can inspire you to help make it the fact of the future.
Serialised push for BIM adoption - LinkedIn
Continuing with the theme of Step by Step guide to BIM started in CES. Those CES articles were also posted in LinkedIn as links. However, as this was all about an adoption of BIM push, I thought there might be a larger audience in LinkedIn, and perhaps more in need, or able to benefit, from the guidance, and help towards successful adoption of BIM. Or at least start on the path.
BIM – Time to get real !
BIM – Time to get real !
[Originally posted on LinkedIn on 20 November 2014]
This article is intentionally written with passion and aggression, a bit of a rant, so as the engender discussion, hoping to improve the overall outcome.
Why are any of us at all interested in BIM. Is it just because the UK Government has stated that all publicly procured construction will be Level 2 BIM after 1 April 2016? That is not very far away. How many of us really understand what Level 2 really means? Is it all too hard?
Apparently so! I recently heard of a significant and well known design house that is not keeping up with its BIM deliverables on a large project. The BIM is only available after the particular work is constructed. What is this about? Are we still thinking in 3D, using a special skill to translate to 2D and then printing out to paper? Then someone else uses another special skill t0 interpret that 2D information into 3D to construct the item. Where is the efficiency in that process? Of course BIM costs extra, and takes longer if we do it as an adjunct to design. We should be designing directly in 3D. Designing directly using 3D intelligent objects with all of the parameters and attributes attached. Designing directly in BIM!
Oh, it costs too much to set up. I don’t think many design houses will be getting rid of their CAD stations and computers and retuning to drawing boards and slide rules. There was a cost in that change, but would you go back? Was the cost a good investment? It is true that there is a start-up cost to BIM. The software and the training, to mention two. However, there are benefits that far out way the initial investment. Oh, I think I just heard that the benefits have not been proven. The Government figures are all hype.
Well even if the headline figures are perhaps difficult to obtain, why would you not try to obtain even a fraction of those savings. Why would you delay achieving that additional profit. A person a while back devised a way for the toothpaste industry to make more sales and profit. Increase the diameter of the cap, and hence the delivery tube. That worked, so the next step was to increase the length of a toothbrush head. Why are we, as an industry so reluctant to take on change? Change is all around us all of the time. Innovation is good. Progress is good.
Next hurdle. BIM is not finished yet. Level 2 is not properly defined? The codification is not agreed either locally or internationally. The software is not able to provide a federated model. ‘We will start BIM when it is all sorted out!’ I hear all sorts of reasons for not doing things. Some real, some just based on misunderstanding or misinformation. The reality is more simple, jump on now or miss the boat. It will be a big struggle to get up to speed in the required timescales. I have also heard some opinion that the boat had sailed in 2013, and if you were not on board, then it was a long and difficult swim.
However, just pretending to do BIM, just being on the periphery is not the way forward. It is, or should be an entirely immersive thing. It is not CAD on Steroids. It is not just a piece of software for the technician to learn. It is not just a new process. It is a people thing. It is an enabler for better communication and collaboration. I continually state in my BIM strategies that BIM is 70% people. It is about the change in attitude to make it all happen. That is not just the designer, or the contractor. It is no good the estimator putting head in sand as saying BIM has nothing to do with me. Nor the planner, nor the quantity surveyor. I have created a mind map of BIM and all of the things that it has the potential to influence. Almost nobody involved in construction projects or asset management remains unaffected. BIM has to be viewed as a holistic all-encompassing thing which is nearly as significant as the industrial revolution, or the technical revolution. It is the beginning of the knowledge revolution.
Perhaps you now think it is time to start taking BIM seriously, so will change the title of the CAD manager to BIM manager. There, job done. No, it most defiantly is not. How many board directors are there, of major companies, that have BIM, Innovation, or Change in their title? BIM, as with all other change programmes needs, it is essential to have, top level support and direction. Without it BIM implementation will be very difficult. Drive from the top and get everyone involved. Write a strategy and deliver it. But do it properly and get engaged. Get the benefits in safety, efficiency, quality, and cost savings as soon as possible.
End of rant.
Replies to Comments
Thanks for the comment Anthony. I agree, it should not be like that. Tracey is correct there are ways to be more efficient than via drawings. Following the survey, and its translation to a 3D model, the design is the next major step. The efficiencies than can be obtained by designing directly in BIM are significant, and they can be continued into construction by the transfer of the model instead of drawings, including as a Contractual Document.
I agree that Clients need to be instrumental on leading BIM. The last BIM implementation strategy I wrote had the client at the core, maintaining control and providing leadership. Clients and Procurement will be the subject of another of my articles.
Hi Mark, Thanks for the comment. How well the survey work is done at the conception of a project sets the foundation for the BIM process throughout the project lifecycle. I agree that it is a game changer and missing out is not a realistic option.
Additional Reading
BIM is most definitely a threat to business
BIM is most definitely a threat to business
[Posted in LinkedIn on November 27, 2014]
Rant over. Lets go back to the basics of BIM from my perspective. I was BIM Manager for Hyder Consulting on London Bridge Station Redevelopment in 2011 / 2012. Costain had just been awarded the project by Network Rail and the team was based in James Forbes House. Over the Christmas period I developed my thoughts on BIM and created the above whiteboard scrawlings. The photo was taken in the first week back in Jan 2012. The whiteboard was developed a little more after this photo. This was me trying to pull together my understanding of BIM and putting it 'out there' for others to see, comment, and understand. It did have some success in that department, not least of all because I noticed that there was the odd visitor, generally after work, when the office was quieter.
Almost three years latter the basic message is still the same. However, recently I was asked by a learned gentleman, how do you get the message across to a wider public. I already write articles for The Journal of the Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors. The first of which was published in November 2012 under the title of Is BIM bigger that Latham? Information Flow, Management and Modelling - Part 1 The full text can be read by following the link. That does achieve a wider publication than a whiteboard on a single project and a few individual presentations. However, how many people read their professional Journal?
Perhaps LinkedIn is the answer. It is not as if I am alone in banging on about BIM. There is an ever growing BIM community discussing the issue, and of course there is all of the excellent work being done by the UK Government's BIM Task Group.
Who is listening, and is the message getting through? I recently read a article about BIM and the UK advertising slogan 'It does exactly what it says on the tin'. I thought it was a good article. BIM is definitely not what it says on the tin. It is not just about Buildings. Nor is it just about 3D models. It has a lot to do about information. At one time it was considered all about information, in a similar vain to Location, Location, Location. However, that is not quite true either. So it does not do what it says on the tin. It does so very much more, and has even more potential.
A recent LinkedIn post by [i]intelligentBIM led to a YouTube clip Implementing 5D BIM: a truly disruptive change. Whilst I am not sure about Estimating being an art form, a lot of the rest resonates, and is well worth 7mins of your time. There are a lot of other articles on LinkedIn about BIM. So it is reasonable to think that there is the beginning of a groundswell in BIM take up.
BIM needs to be understood for what it is by a wider audience than BIM experts and that should include senior management. Why should senior management get involved then. BIM is 70% about people, and therefore its implementation is about a cultural change programme. BIM is not just a new process, nor a new piece of software to be bought and taught. Senior management should be interested in any major threat to the business that they manage. It should be part of the core job description. BIM is most definitely a threat to business as we know it. It is a disruptive change. It is part of an knowledge revolution. The threat to a business from BIM is primarily to not know about BIM and how to implement it. The corporate risk manager should be jumping up and down at the board meetings demanding what is being done to reduce the impact of BIM and the knowledge revolution. The shareholders will want to know. How is the business to survive even, if it continues to fail to understand BIM and the ramifications of delaying a proper implementation strategy including a funded and well managed change programme driven from the very top of the business. Communication is key.
All of that before we get into the upcoming skills shortage, the reducing workbank of those companies that fail to embrace BIM, and the loss of additional profit.
Food for thought!
Photos expanded
Sorry, the hand writing is not very legible, especially towards the bottom. Accordingly, below is a transcript of the bottom image.
>>> Information Flow >>> >>> >>>> |
|||||||||
Idea |
Asset Register |
Requirements | Systems Integration | Objects | Work Packages | Testing & Commissioning | CoBie |
Asset Register |
|
Standards | Structural Analysis | Elements | ITT | Materials Used | |||||
Laws |
Lighting Analysis | Resources | Contract | Materials Manuals | |||||
Surveys | Design | Quantities | Progress | As Built Drawing | |||||
Permissions | Interoperability | Sequence | Valuation | As Built Model | |||||
Constraints | Ped Flows | Outputs | Change | Validation | |||||
Works Information | Costs | Quality | H & S File | ||||||
Specifications | CO2 | Issues | |||||||
Risks | |||||||||
KPI | |||||||||
Additional Reading
PS. If a competitor is saving >10% more than you, and producing a better product with a more usable handover pack, which reduces the clients running costs over the full life of the product, then that is a threat to your business.
BIM, Clients and Children of the revolution
BIM, Clients and Children of the revolution.
[Posted in LinkedIn on December 5, 2014]
BIM, Clients, and Children of the Revolution, or should it be Leaders. About to breakout into song. No I don't think that would be a good idea. It would clear rooms instantly, and that would be contrary to the intention of these posts.
There have been many revolutions throughout history. I am not talking about the likes of the French revolution here but the Industrial Revolution, which started in the UK, and similar. BIM is now part of a similar revolution. It did not start in the UK, but as part of the Digital Revolution has the capacity to be a Global game changer in no less a way than the the Industrial Revolution of over 200 years ago has changed the way we live today. The Computer Revolution is another example. Would any construction company today consider going back to using a slide rule for calculations, a typing pool, for letters, and abstract paper for collections and accounting. Are we thinking of filing office space with row after row of drawing boards with all of the associated designers, engineers, and technicians. Perhaps we ought to think about it from a global social point of view as there would definitely be an increase in the number of people required for the same output. However, to remain competitive the amount of money available to pay that group of people would remain the same for the same output, so each person would get significantly less. Computers are here to stay and the drawing board is not going to make a comeback any time soon.
What makes a successful revolution? A good idea, innovation or cause is a good starting point. Support is next. That support can be from the masses, or from those with influence or power. Money is also useful. In the UK 'The Government Construction Strategy' published by the Cabinet office on 31 May 2011 and the subsequent BIM Task Group has made a really good start. The construction councils, professional bodies, and standards have all complemented the initial efforts. The good start now needs to be cemented into a firm foundation. It is time for Clients to takeover the revolution and carry it much further than the Government ever could on its own. There are some excemplementry clients totally engaged with BIM such as Crossrail and HS2. HS2 has stated that it will require the whole of the supply chain to be BIM capable. These are just some rail examples, I am sure there are many others.
However,not all clients are born equal. There are numerous types of clients with different experiences and needs. The client who has a portfolio of buildings over one hundred years old, keen to become involved in BIM, but where is the value proposition. Alright for a new extension but otherwise how do you realise the FM savings. Given that current thoughts are around 20% for the project and 80% for the operation and maintenance thereafter. How to leverage those potential savings? Another client may have a fixed number of bridges to maintain. Both, examples of clients with existing buildings or infrastructure. The speculative developer poses an interesting problem. He is building to sell, and therefore has no interest in the potential savings during the FM stage. However, could he not turn that small cost of BIM into a commercial advantage. A prestige building with a low FM cost compared to the competition. Similar to the A+ energy rating on the next fridge that you buy. Would you dare to buy a D rated one. Perhaps that is something that the standards bodies could be looking at in a similar fashion to the energy testing of buildings. These clients should not be forgotten as we develop our BIM solutions and requirements further. However, even within the new build fraternity, there is a substantial variance between all of the clients. One of those variances is to do with the frequency of undertaking new construction works. For the small one time client, again where is the value proposition? Other clients are continually involved in construction. Given that there are evidently so many different types of client there can not possibly be one BIM approach! Or can there be one loose size, that does fit all?
Irrespective of how many different types of client there are, it is they collectively that have the influence and power to propel the revolution forward. It is the clients that are at the top of the food chain. It is the clients that can shape the future with their actions or inactions. The clients can benefit from the adoption of BIM. Albeit to differing degrees.
However, there are many obstacles to finding the BIM ladder let alone getting on the first rung of the BIM ladder. There is so much published about BIM how does the uninitiated get started? There appears to be so many different flavours of BIM, which one to chose? It is some software, my IT department will chose the vender! I can't convince my boss that it is anything to do with him! All of the information required for BIM Maturity Level 2 is not yet in place, so how can I start? Is the codification set yet? It is just a process, easy to put in place. I will have to comply with BS1192 and all of those PAS1192 etc. I will defer starting until everything is in place and it has settled down for a few years.
Do you remember your fist bike? Did it have stabilizers? Did you get on and ride it with ease right from the first moment. Or were there a few grazed hands, knees, and elbows? I know, where was the PPE, to avoid the injury! BIM is similar, it will take a while to get to grips with it. There will be some falls along the way. Even some wrong turns. The current situation suggests that almost inevitably there will be some re-coding and re-mapping required. All of these activities are small in comparison to not getting on the bike at all. If the first project is not fully 1192 compliant, does it matter as much as not engaging in BIM at all. Compliance can come later, with practice and experience. Now this is not denigrating the PAS1192 or any of the works of the various committees. However, it does recognize that BIM, in its holistic manifestation is a paradigm shift heavily involving people, and that there are a lot of people in the industry, working directly or indirectly for a lot of different types of client.
The client has the ability to influence and direct the whole of its supply chain. It can continue to fuel the revolution, and I maintain that there is an obligation that it should do so. Perhaps failure to do so may have some strange and unintended consequences. The tier one supply chain may become the top of the food chain. The gnu turning on the lion? Oh, it does happen sometimes!
Also, let us not underestimate the contribution that the SME, being more agile than his larger counterparts, could make in this Digital Revolution.
Are you convinced that the Clients should be the next leaders? If so, what are the next steps? The client board, CEO / MD needs to support the Digital Revolution, and understand what that means.
After that, get help!
More on that next time.
BIM, Clients, Leaders of the Revolution
BIM, Clients, Leaders of the Revolution
[Posted in LinkedIn on December 11, 2014]
Previously on.., I discussed the need for the construction industry’s clients to step forward and become leaders in the BIM revolution. Assuming that is now a taken, and that BIM is indeed a revolution, let us look at the next steps for a new build client that does not have a large mature BIM team and capability. For ease of reading I will call an example company LTS Jones Ltd.
What are the success factors for the implementation of BIM. The board of LTS Jones Ltd have decided it is a good idea, so how do we measure success? Normally, we would look straight to the bottom line. Is the implementation profitable? However, BIM is more complex than that. For a start, going forward, BIM should be free at point of sale. BIM should be so integrated into the normal day job that it is impractical if not impossible to collect and separate the majority of BIM related costs. The BIM generated savings could also be elusive to capture, partly because of the argument, 'We would have spotted that without all of this fancy BIM stuff'. Perhaps that is the case, but perhaps not. Yes, there are specific savings which have been separately identified, but the majority of the complex savings will only become apparent with statistics.
BIM implementation is fundamentally a change program. It is 70% about people. We could be diverted at this point to talk yet again about the title. BIM, Better Information Management, Information Flow Management and Modelling (IFMandM), Collaborative Information Exchange and Modelling, (CIEM) or perhaps Collaborative Information Management and Modelling, (CIMM). However, delving into the name yet again would be a distraction.
So, step back a little. The board of LTS Jones Ltd has decided to adopt BIM, not because of any government instruction, but because of the safety, efficiency, time, quality, and cost improvements that it brings, together with the enhanced wellbeing of its staff. The government instruction helped LTS Jones Ltd board appreciate and understand the benefits though! The early realisation of those benefits must therefore be a key. “If benefits are there to be had, let us have them, even if not at 100% to start with.”
Perhaps there are two routes at this point. Traditional, plan, prepare, trial, test, review, pilot implementation, review and full implementation. Or another, more organic, jump in and swim.
Let us consider the normally prudent traditional option, and think about the obstacles and blockers. Establish the starting point and the required outcomes. This will provide the path between the two points, the process and the resources required to deliver the outcomes.
Not losing sight of the government’s requirements with respect to BIM maturity level 2, which would of course be an objective of a well formed implementation plan. However, not all of maturity level 2 is to date, fully prescribed.
Another outcome would be about the information to pass to the operations and maintenance, or FM fraternity. The format, structure, content, and level of detail would be required. However, that is also not yet known by most clients. I have in the past used the phrase, “Like asking someone what car they would like, when the wheel has not yet be invented in their world.” An alternative on the same track that I heard recently is a quote from Henry Ford. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” The result is that not only is the desired outcome not yet defined within the LTS Jones Ltd’s organisation, but it is very unlikely that it would be able to establish what the ideal outcome should be, in a reasonable timescale. This is not a criticism, but I consider it to be realism. There are too many factors and unknowns at the outset to make this a feasible proposition.
Two of the primary outcomes are therefore unobtainable at the outset. This makes setting the path clearly to the required BIM outcomes very difficult.
The result is that even from a process improvement point of view, the traditional methods are unlikely to work. Add to that the other ingredient, which is that it is a change programme, and significant organisational and cultural change programmes normally take ten years, the traditional approach is not an appropriate method.
However, the jump in and swim, or thrown in the deep end, is more likely to bring the BIM benefits sooner. Provided always that proper support and lifeguards are in place! LTS Jones Ltd should start with what they know, and what is available. Use the BIM help hired to get the best starting position possible. There are the CIC Protocol, among others, and the 1192 BS and PAS series. These are very good starting points. However, some elements will remain elusive at this time. Adopt as much as possible, and aim towards the remaining elements for the future. Ultimately LTS Jones Ltd will want to be BSI / ISO compliant.
Maximisation of the BIM benefits at the earliest time will inevitably lead to the best outcomes for LTS Jones Ltd even if there is rework and remapping of data required at a later date.
Using the latter method, we can return to the measures of success. These can then be measured by the number of LTS Jones Ltd’s projects that implement BIM well, and the uptake of BIM by LTS Jones Ltd’s staff and his supply chain. Reiterating, BIM is about people, as much as 70% about people. People and their behaviours will decide the rate of adoption, and the success of BIM. This will enable some degree of measurement and control over something which is intrinsically fluid and in a state of flux.
LTS Jones Ltd, one of many clients leading the revolution has taken another step, or giant leap. Together with the hired BIM help LTS Jones Ltd has created a viable graduated BIM implementation strategy and a progressive change programme. This in itself is a significant achievement. The effort, input, dedication, time and expertise to get here should not be underestimated.
It does not feel a lot like a revolution yet. There is not a body of people to lead.
Time to get the supply chain involved. This will be interesting, as there is a real possibility that the supply chain will know more about BIM than our example client, LTS Jones Ltd. Easy then, just hand all of the actions and responsibilities down to the supply chain. However, this is inappropriate behaviour. We would not give a contractor a project to build a bridge without him having demonstrated a capability of successful bridge building. Simple resolution, test for BIM experience and competency during pre-qualification.
However, are there many BIM experienced contractors currently in the market place and is their experience with the correct flavour of BIM? We have not dealt with the flavours yet. That is another issue altogether. Are we also excluding too much of the market place by asking for a BIM track record? I think it is the equivalent of the recruitment advert for a graduate …, experience required. Or to use Mr Henry Ford again, having a PQQ requirement of; ‘having experience in the assembly line technique for the mass production of cars’, shortly after the technique had been developed. Such restrictions in the early days would be bad for the industry and probably detrimental to the employing organisation, the client, our LTS Jones Ltd. In a few years’ time it will be appropriate to ask for experience, but not yet.
How to engage with the supply chain to get the best results and how high to set the BIM bar, are subjects for another discussion.
For the avoidance of doubt LTS Jones Ltd is entirely fictional and any similarity to any person or entity is purely coincidental. No animals were harmed in the making…
BIM, Clients leading the revolution
BIM, Clients leading the revolution
[Posted in LinkedIn on December 19, 2014]
Continuing with the fictional company of LTS Jones Ltd. An informed client organisation with an ongoing portfolio of mixed new build, both buildings and infrastructure. It has established a board level led internal change programme with the help of an experienced BIM consultant. The BIM consultant has suggested a succession plan that includes the Commercial Department leading the holistic BIM implementation within the company, still actively supported by the board.
Why the commercial department, I almost hear in concert. The obvious choice would be the architectural or engineering teams, or perhaps the Engineering Data Manager or CAD Manager. The Document Control Manager could also be considered. Lots of organisations choose one of these. However, I consider that this limits the deployment of the full potential of the holistic BIM revolution. Procurement, contract, cost, value, organisation, management of the supply chain are already part of the domain of the Commercial Department. The Commercial Department should be able to adopt a holistic approach more readily; especially as generally it already has a wide influence both within and outwith the organisation, probable more than any other single part of the organisation. That said, all of the others need to be involved, and could equally led the BIM implementation, albeit at a slightly reduced pace.
The internal BIM implementation is progressing well and is coming towards the end of the 'inform' stage of the change management programme. A keen, personable, respected, knowledgeable, entrepreneurial, innovative person or persons are working closely with the BIM consultant so as to be able to take over the internal BIM implementation drive.
This however is still not much of a revolution. It is a huge step forward for LTS Jones Ltd which will place it in good stead going forward into 2016. Even bigger, brave steps are required both of LTS Jones Ltd and other similar companies if the revolution is to spread thorough out the construction industry. There needs to be a significant change in the procurement process and the relationship with the supply chain. Some of the changes need to be recognized and supported by changes to the EU Procurement rules. This is where the not to be forgotten visionaries, who started the journey and shaped the future, who are already talking about BIM maturity levels 3 and 4, and are talking about BIM, 3D OS maps, 3D geology maps, GIS, Big Data, Data Scientists, Town Planning, and Smart Cities, all in the same sentences, well paragraphs, will again help fuel the revolution. Fan the flames and continue to enable the progress towards a more joined up digital world.
As and aside that brings me to a few more change of name suggestions. Digital Information Management (DIM), Digital Information Management and Modelling (DIMM), Digital Information Visualisation (DIV), or Global Digital Information Management and Integration (GDIMI). OK, I know that BIM is here to stay, in the same way that vacuum cleaners are Hovers, at least in the UK.
Back to industrial scale revolution. Let’s look at some small changes that will make a difference. The project workflow has a feasibility stage, called different names under different Workflows or Plan of Work. Assuming than each project has been subject to some form of cursory review before having a budget allocated for a feasibility study it would seem reasonable to also assume that a significant proportion of those projects progress further into the Workflow. The first change then becomes quite simple; spend more on the initial phases of the project. This will aid better decisions. Engage with the supply change, proactively. Allow sufficient time for the investigations to take place. Provide sufficient budget for your own staff to properly engage with the project, not just a skeleton crew to project manage the outsourced feasibility study. Bring in the operator and maintainer into the initial requirements development, and keep them involved. All of these are simple things to change and will be in the gift of LTS Jones Ltd to change. However, there is undeniably a cost involved in this approach. Or is it merely a transfer of when the cost is incurred? Actually, it is more than likely the prime contributor to a reduction in both project costs and whole life costs, and BIM has not even had a look in yet. The same applies to surveys. Engage with the survey companies. Ask what can they do, and in what timescales before telling them what they have to do in the minimum possible time for next to no cost. This is a truly false economy and waste of money in all cases other than those jobs that don’t make it past feasibility study. If there is a high proportion of fall out, perhaps review your process. For the LiDAR Survey, have the definition setting on high. Don’t try to cut the budget by increasing the intervals of the boreholes in the ground investigation. For the utility survey information, have everything done in one sweep. CAT scan, multi-frequency ground penetrating radar. The whole works. The greatest risk and expense is the unknown. So why would you want to shackle your project right from the beginning. Look at any project risk register, it is full of unknowns that could, and should have been reduced in the earlier stages of the project, and that are now considered to be a critical delay, so cannot be undertaken it the available time frame. ‘Just add some more money to the risk pot.’ This does not constitute good risk management, good financial management. It is neither good project management nor good safety management. So why is it so widespread a practice? There are so many horror stories out there of unknown geology and services that have killed projects, and sometimes unfortunately, people. Even the utility services survey, if done as a full ground survey could revel unknown archaeology. Which is cheaper, a planned six month archaeology dig, or a complete site shutdown after works have commenced? I know I could have drifted into later parts of some workflows but the point is still valid.
Create better information to make better decisions, sooner.
Now, you have collected some information in conjunction with your specialists. By definition, they know more about their subject than you do, it is there specialism. By engaging with them you can tap into than knowledge rather than just having the minimal tick box report. Provided that anything they find is not terminal for the project, pay a little more (again!) to have the information translated and integrated. This is the beginning of your BIM model. The ground upon which you will be building! Have the ground information modelled, probably into a program like Civil3D. Find out if there is a 3D geological model of the area. Add it to the LiDAR and other survey information to provide you base model. I know by this time you will have spent what appears to be a lot of money for this stage of the project. I am now going to suggest something radical which will stop a fair proportion of you reading any further. Publish the federated model of survey and investigation data as open source type information, free to use. You needed to spend the money on the surveys anyway, why not put the information out for others to benefit. Again the central visionaries will have a role to play in creating a common repository. Over a long period of time there would be an emerging image of the national map of services, ground data, geology and built environment, as it was at that point in time. Rich digital information, partially about our past. Perhaps similar to the national censes of the past is to the Genealogists of today.
This is where it starts to get a little trickier! Where LTS Jones Ltd will have to start standing out from the crowd, to start becoming a leader in their time. As if giving survey information away for free was not enough! It is time for a full review of the procurement strategy for the supply chain. It is no longer appropriate for lowest cost to be the sole deciding factor in the award of a contract. The relationship with the supply chain has to change. It is therefore a self-evident imperative that how we procure and contract with the supply must also change. There already exists procurement rules which allow for the selection of the contactor based on not cost alone. ‘The most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) criterion enables the contracting authority to take account of criteria that reflect qualitative, technical and sustainable aspects of the tender submission as well as price when reaching an award decision.’
The EU may wish to consider changing that to most socially and economically advantageous tender. I don’t think it is necessary to change the EU procurement rules to accommodate behaviours as part of the evaluation criteria. The relationship between the parties is directly, although not wholly, related to the behaviours of the parties. Good relationships between the parties invariably led to better project outcomes. Even when projects go sour, good relationships limit the impact of the difficulties. Therefore it follows the behaviours impact the final cost of the project and therefore the economics of the project. By making the behaviours of the potential project team part of the tender assessment right from the earliest part of the procurement process, LTS Jones Ltd are making a significant change to supply chain management and contributing to the BIM revolution. Further, by making the behavioural assessment 20-25% of the marks, they are making a firm statement about their intentions for the project and the relationships that they wish to engender and maintain. It is a clear statement of intent. Add to that a change to the CIC Protocol example to include a termination clause for not playing BIM and collaboration nicely, especially if it is in both directions, and they have very clearly stated their intent.
This will enable the Tenderers to believe that intent and reduce their Tender Price accordingly. They can do this not by a further attack on their profitability but in the firm knowledge that in projects where the parties work together, the costs are lower than they would otherwise be. The more confidence the Tenderer has in his Client the more he is able to give his best price and the more likely he is to win work. Simple easy steps to the first part of the value proposition of BIM and the associated collaborative working.
Before LTS Jones Ltd get to the point of Tendering for the construction phase of the project there are the design stages to consider. This is perhaps more difficult and may need some changes to EU Procurement rules. The design process would logically seem to be more efficient if undertaken by one supplier from cradle to grave. Knowledge transfer between stages would be simplified and continuity would be improved, both providing efficiencies and cost savings. BIM, it could be argued would aid both and therefore it is no longer such a restriction. However, with the improved relationships throughout his supply chain engendered by LTS Jones Ltd it does seem practical to retain a winning team of surveyors, designers, operators, maintainers and client together on the project, through all of its stages. Do you therefore award all stages with break clauses for each stage, or award a small early stage contract with big variations for each stage. Another input required from the visionaries.
Why did we start breaking it up in the first place? Was it just to get the cheapest price at each stage? Or perhaps to allow the flexibility of if and when to continue with the project. Sometimes it seems to be to get a different perspective on the project. I have known a case where a change in designer at stage gate resulted in a £70m saving on project construction cost by adopting a totally different solution, whilst providing enhanced functionality and aesthetics.
However, this is where I become slightly contradictory and inconsistent. On the one hand I talk about clients trusting the specialists they employ and remaining software agnostic in their EIR and specifications. Now I am going to say that some of the design houses will have to change their business model to continue to serve their clients well. Those that do will reap the rewards. I fail to see for instance how a designer can write an option report, stating a preferred option, without having an estimate, a programme of works, safety and constructability assessment, a whole life cost, and operational and maintainability elements. The BIM workflow, at 5D / 6D plus carbon will require all of these to be done collaboratively, concurrently not in separate companies sequentially, with all of the inefficiencies that involves. Continuous, progressive assurance together with the full adoption of requirements management and systems engineering are also required to ensure consistently high quality approach and outcomes
Different approaches to procurement and relationships, different business models in some cases, and different workflows are all essential parts of the BIM revolution and are precursors to the software and technical solutions of BIM implementation. For LTS Jones Ltd to adopt this together with his internal changes, in a structured and informed implementation he has demonstrated industry leadership and contributed to the longer term BIM revolution at the same time as ensuring his continued viability and improving his safety, efficiency, and profitability.
Wishing you all a Happy Christmas and New Year, or holiday and festive season.
BIM is transient !
BIM is transient !
[Posted in LinkedIn on March 12, 2015]
It is transient and ephemeral.
What is BIM anyway? Yes it is Building Information Modelling, but is Building a noun or a verb? Perhaps it is Building Information Management or even Better Information Management.
This wordle under the title of BIM can be read here.
This wordle under the title of BIM can be read here. Here is another.
All are dated from 2012 and are significantly dissimilar in content and emphasis. I recently saw a newer BIM wordle which had progressed again. Different words and different emphasis. Fortunately some remained the same, but with a significantly changed emphasis.
Should we be surprised about the apparent change? Should we even consider that dissimilarities in word graphics has any real meaning, as they can easily be manipulated. Taken on their own, it would be a dubious call, however, there is ample evidence just within the pages of LinkedIn that BIM is changing all of the time. BIM is evolving as more people talk about it and work with it. There are still many discussions about what BIM is and how it should be treated, and by whom.
BIM will continue to evolve.
It is therefore not a surprise that BIM has actually changed as much as the graphical representation of it has. This is all before the integration of BIM, PIM and AIM. Then add GIS, FM, and Big Data. Let us stretch it even further into integration and interoperability of DIMEC and Digital Built Britain. Then stretch it yet again to include Europe, USA, New Zealand and Australia, Middle East, India, China, and any other BIM adopting countries around the world. BIM will therefore continue to mutate and will eventually change beyond the initial understanding and intent. BIM is therefore most definitely transient. Not the here today, gone tomorrow, over hyped type of transient, more the moving sands, continuously changing and adapting transient.
BIM being transient is not however, a bad thing. It needs to continue to evolve and develop to maximise and deliver it's full potential.
One of the really good things, to my mind, is the increasing evidence of the recognition and acceptance, of the importance of people. Yes BIM is software, and it is process, and it is information, but primarily it is people, about 70% people.
Now given that BIM is transient so must the people involved with BIM become adaptive to rapid change. They must be agile and astute. This obviously only applies to the BIM Manager, or the direct BIM team. No that is totally incorrect. BIM will effect almost everybody involved in the construction industry. It is a game changer that will impact all but those about to retire.
BIM will impact all but those about to retire
The procurement team need to understand the implications to contract and how to procure differently with a different emphasis. Behaviours become an important part of the Tender Evaluation. EU Procurement Rules will need to be reviewed to allow the development of long term relationships, both within multiple phases of a single project and multiple sequential projects.
The commercial team will need to understand the concept of almost instant quantity takeoff, and the ability to price the job as the design progresses. With the ability to say, you can't make that change as it breaks the budget, almost as soon as the change is made. Designing to a budget becomes a reality. Working hand in hand with the designers and the constructibility managers. The commercial team will also have the benefit of continuously updated progress and valuations. Which in turn leads to accurate EVA and reporting.
The Project Controls team will have much better and timely information to feed reports and decision making.
The sustainability team will more information than they very dreamt possible, and at a time when changes can be made easily and relatively cheaply.
The Health and Safety team will be able to see the use of visualization to test safe working methods, and to brief teams prior to work, with reduced communication problems. The information will provide locations of safe access and egress points together with the location and type of hazard, or restricted area.
The list goes on and on. Each part of the team will be affected by the implementation of BIM. It is therefore an imperative that all of the team is engaged in the cultural change management process that nearly all employers of staff in the construction industry should adopt.
It is therefore an imperative that all of the team is engaged.
It is people that will drive BIM forward. It is people that will collaborate to make the whole better. It is also people that dislike change and disruption, especially when it appears to be continuous. They may be called Luddites by some, but at some point they will need help adopting change.
The BIM implementation strategy must therefore include an element of cultural change management which is provided to all members of the team and immediate stakeholders. (eg a project has residents and neighbours as stakeholders, who do not necessarily need to be trained in BIM)
It is a business failure to think that you can just hire a BIM team and get on with BIM successfully. Just as BIM is transient, so must the shape and content of the BIM Team. The BIM implementation team needs to include many skill sets. It is not just a case of calling the CAD Manager the BIM Manager, and hope for the best.
BIM resources are going to become in great demand as the 2016 deadline approaches. With shortages comes the inevitable supply and demand equation. They will become expensive (even more so). They will become difficult to recruit and retain. Get in quickly and get started now.
More about the structure of the BIM implementation team another time.
The face of construction is changing, and the people behind that face must change as well.
Remember, the construction industry is made up of companies that have teams which consist of individuals. Individuals need to be included in the BIM implementation strategy. Individuals working together can make a powerful difference.
BIM is storming
BIM is storming
[Posted in LinkedIn on May 10, 2015]
BIM is on a pathway of development and implementation.
New things don't just land on the doorstep fully formed. BIM is the same, it is developing as it is growing. This is to be expected and is a good thing.
The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results.
Other group development models are available.
The BIM community can be considered as a diverse group. In the UK the government provided a degree of leadership and impetus, to invigorate the development and growth of BIM. A BIM community has formed around that kernel.
I would say that the forming element has now been successfully completed. There are still many instances of "it is all hype", "it will never catch on" through to "I will catch the boat when all of the problems are sorted out". The naysayers can watch from the sidelines. The Luddites can protest their way to obscurity. The BIM community has reached critical mass and is now verging on unstoppable.
There are even a few early adopters that are beginning to realise the benefits. Accolades to them for the foresight and bravery to step into the relatively unknown and uncharted waters.
However, for the majority, the BIM community has entered into the storming phase of group development. This is evidenced within the various discussion forums.
- BIM is process, and only process.
- You need super fast computers to run the software and visualisations. BIM is all about the 3D model.
- BIM is about this software or that software.
- Codification is the key to BIM.
- Common codes for everyone.
- How to interchange the information?
- What information to keep?
- How to store the information?
- What about the people?
And so it goes on. The list is endless. This seems to me to be the epitome of the storming.
The Storming phase can become destructive to the team and will lower motivation if allowed to get out of control. ... The team members will therefore resolve their differences and members will be able to participate with one another more comfortably. The ideal is that they will not feel that they are being judged, and will therefore share their opinions and views. Normally tension, struggle and sometimes arguments occur.
This is where BIM is at the moment for the majority of the growing BIM community. Just because there is discord, does not mean that BIM growth and implementation is failing. It is a natural and necessary part of development.
My family and I went to Dorking in the summer of 2009. Together with a 1000 other people we sat down and put a few pieces of Lego together to form a brick to a standard design and size. Each brick was uniform and was verified and validated for conformity in colour and specification. Accepted bricks were stored, and subsequently moved to another part of the vineyard. Failure meant demolition. Back to the original Lego block components. (Tempted to talk about right first time, but I will resist). After a while, and 3.2 million Lego blocks later, James May starts building his Lego house, one brick at a time. Each brick is made of 272 Lego blocks. We made some of those bricks, saw James May recording part of the TV show. Here is an extract. We saw the house being built on another visit a short time later. I don't know if it was designed in a BIM environment, I doubt it. But that is not the point I was getting to. The point is the power of togetherness. Together, for a common cause, children and parents built Lego blocks to a standard design, without the aid of a Game Boy. Each of those standard bricks were assembled together to form the unthinkable, a house made of Lego. Collaborating together.
Unfortunately, the Lego house is no more, it had to be demolished. The achievement still stands though.
As will the achievement of full implementation of BIM. It will become part of the day job and will no longer be part of the headlines. It will morph into something more holistic such as DIMEC (see previous article).
The struggles and tribulations of the storming phase will transform into the realisation of the norming phase. Were it is understood that the four cornerstones of BIM are, in no particular order;
- Technology
- Process
- Codification
- People
Without any one of these, the full potential will never be realised. As with the Lego house it cannot work without the full adoption of uniformity, standards, togetherness and collaboration.
Company Business Models will have to change to accommodate the transformation of the industry.
Relish the challenge, push the change, enjoy the success.
Heading photo found here. Credit to Lewis Cawte
BIM - to Panic or not to Panic
BIM - to Panic or not to Panic
[Posted in LinkedIn on July 25, 2015]
Strangely the answer is 42.
How can that possibly be the case?
Simple, it is 36 weeks (at time of writing of course) (note to self, find out how to do a countdown clock in HTML) until the UK government deadline for BIM implementation, 1st April 2016. The beginning of the new financial year, 2016. It is therefore 40 weeks until your first reporting cycle of the new year, plus two weeks to prepare the reports. There you have it, the answer is 42 after all.
In 42 weeks you will see the first indicators of the impact of the UK Government's push for BIM. Public Sector works or not, it will affect you. Does that first report show the beginnings of a downturn in the pipeline for Public Sector works. Does it show a pressure on margins in the rest of the market due to all the Public Sector contractors who have yet to meet the BIM requirements looking to replace their workbook in other areas. Alternatively, you have much forethought, and have successfully, and genuinely, met the criteria, and are struggling to know how you are going to get the additional resources, and fill the skills gap, that is evident from the burgeoning pipeline.
Not to worry, the reports aren't sensitive enough in reality to show any of that in the first month, so there is no need to Panic. Back to your desks, and back to work.
No need to Panic.
But just wait a minute. How long will it take to become BIM compliant after your reports do pick up the change in the market? How much white space will you have to endure before you notice that there is a problem and how long before you can start rectifying the problem. I attended a BIM conference in February 2013 where it was said that if you had not started, you had missed the BIM boat. Adding all that together that is about 3 years. Can you survive three years of decline? Hey, it won't be three years, because you will take special measures. Ok, can you survive two years of decline? How long will it take to claw back up?
So don't panic yet, save it up for latter.
I like that, some forward planning.
BIM Ready
You are already BIM ready. Oh good. Like a TV that comes ready with the next technology leap. I am so pleased for you. However, you do recall that you will have to have demonstrable BIM experience. Read that as successfully implemented and executed BIM projects across the company. If you were tendering for construction of a new bridge, but you had no experience in that particular area, as you are a general Civils Contractor, how do you think your technical appraisal would go at the PQQ?
- Have you got a Common Data Environment? Is it enterprise, one for each project, or someone else provides it?
- Have you got your protocols in place?
- Can you read / write an EIR and BEP
- Are your processes amended and BIM centric?
- Do you have the right hardware and software?
- Are you using 5D plus carbon as you minimum?
- Are you ready to collaborate?
- Do you understand the whole lifecycle concept?
- Have you reviewed and amended your business model to suit the future trading requirements to maximise your position and profitability?
- Have you implemented a BIM 4 Health and Safety Plan?
- Have you linked the new CDM requirements to your BIM Strategy?
- Do you have a BIM Strategy and Implementation Plan?
- Have you commenced your cultural change programme across the whole of your business?
- Do you have a Board Level BIM director?
- Have you a skills improvement plan?
- Have you a recruitment plan?
The list could almost be endless. I am sure the readership could keep adding to that list. In fact, there is the challenge. In the comments, quadruple the list. There are currently 16. (For the avoidance of doubt, this is not the list that may be used to demonstrate UK Government BIM capability)
You may have read the 1192 series. Genuinely well done if you have, there are a lot who have not. They are a good foundation.
Do you still feel that you are truly BIM ready?
Then I suspect you are one of the few, and many congratulations. You are looking at a very successful future and possibly sector breaking profitability.
Perhaps for the rest, it really is time to panic.
Time to Panic?
If not time to panic, time to get help. If you are not a long way along the path with your internal efforts, and can clearly see a successful outcome, you need to reassess your requirements and get help. There are plenty of experts out there plying their trade. Well, perhaps not that many, to go around. I recently read a good article on cold call BIM Experts so I will not go into that area again. You will in fact need a multitude of experts. A gaggle of BIM experts just to get you started. Start with a Strategy, develop a plan and move forward from there. It will not be cheap, nor will it be quick. It will however be a good ROI. You will not be able to change your company in 10 days, nor ten weeks, nor should you want to. You will be able to have made some inroads into BIM implementation in 42 weeks.
Thank you for your 4.2 minutes ...
PS. Just 42 seconds between the top and bottom photographs.
Don't Panic, ... Plan!
BIM Change
More posts on LinkedIn about BIM, but specifically about change and change management. How to manage change is a very special skill and is often an ignored or forgotten part of an organisation's strategy or mission statement.
Change - paint the wall
Change - paint the wall
[Posted in LinkedIn on September 11, 2016]
You have become bored with the bland off white walls in your dining room. They were good a while ago, but it is time for a more dynamic approach. A bold colour is required. The decision is made. Well half made. In the dim and distant past it was said that the average UK family consists of 2.4 children. There was even a TV programme about it. So let's assume that average family of 2 adults and 2.4 children. That's 4.4 stakeholders which need to be considered and consulted about that mythical decision that you thought you had made. Admittedly some have less voting rights than others. You may get a goo gaa out of one and an uh out of another. Interesting observation there, that the baby uses two syllables whilst the grumpy monosyllabic teenager only manages one. Anyway, the family has now been consulted and engaged and change is agreed. The next few weeks are spent on discussing colour and planning. Are there any other interested parties. People who can offer worthwhile input, or perhaps friends whose opinions you value. Thursday before the painting weekend Jane, a friend was on the phone. A sudden thought, "Jane's boyfriend is an interior designer' isn't he?" "That's what the call was about, they've broken up." "No, you can't still phone him!" Chalked up as a missed stakeholder involvement. On to the painting. It is done, stand back and admire the work. Do you both like it? And the children? Other stakeholders?
Change has been achieved without too much drama. The 2 + 2.4 are content. A good outcome. Even if it was not liked, it is easy to pick another colour and change again without too much trouble. Do you still like it after three months?
Next change, the bathroom
With one success under my belt it is time to attempt another change. The bathroom refit this time. A bit more ambitious than painting a room. Is it to be DIY, a bit of specialist contractor management or just get a bathroom contractor in to do it all. You all know how this goes by now. Consultation, stakeholders, skills, involvement, management, risk assessment, outcomes, probability of success. The bathroom is a bigger project with bigger impact on the people involved.
Having considered these two very simple, relatively uncomplicated change projects, with few impacted people involved, let us consider a change programme on a different scale. BIM implementation within one company.
BIM implementation
Here, let us forget everything and anything we though about change. About the two experiences above.
BIM is only about technology. BIM is only about process. BIM is only about codification or lexicon. BIM is only about information. BIM is only about 3D, and is only for CAD. There is no need to think about change, that is not relevant. It is one of the above ONLYs. All you need is a Project Manager to keep the costs and techies in check. People will adapt and do as they are told.
Sorry to upset, and perhaps you don't want to read further, but if that fits you or your company, you are in for a big surprise. Let's hope it is not an extinction event. Sometime there will be a need to understand it is more than all of the ONLYs above put together. It is about people as well. It is about a fundamental change to the company which must managed very carefully. It is the biggest cultural change programme you are likely to undertake in the decade. You may have to review your business model at the same time. Don't worry about it though, it does not all have to start or be delivered all at the same time. The main thing is to understand the challenge and the implications. That is the fundamental differentiation between success and failure. Good outcomes, and less good. Change is around us all of the time, and always has been. Embrace it, manage it, and prosper.
There are companies that are already prospering from their efforts, which is good for the industry. We have to think not just about company cultural change, but about sector, and industry total change, in its perspective, interactions, and relationships. It has to share information and ideas. It has to communicate better. It has to collaborate. The industry needs its own cultural change management programme that understands the challenges and the people issues. The negativity, the fear, the scepticism, the reluctance to change, and the uncertainty need to be heard, listened to, and resolved. Then we can help the industry move forward and change. Not because of any government mandate, or shareholder pressure asking why you are not adopting the change, or enterprise risk manager downgrading your annual report or company status, but because it makes sense. It makes sense to adopt BIM properly together with the rest of the digital revolution, in an integrated and coherent manner, whilst at the same time disjointed and fixing those things that can be fixed and deferring those that are in the too difficult box. Accepting that some legacy stuff is more difficult to change and update. Come back to those later. It the same way as come back to the Luddites latter. Big Bang change does not always work, but managed change is better than head in the sand. Think of the digital revolution, think of holistic BIM, think of any size, CAPEX, OPEX, TOTEX, asset management, operation, FM, demolition, design, survey, it all joins together as part of the change the industry has embarked on. Change is all around you. Join the ship and enjoy it. No, not a ship, more a flotilla of clients, surveyors, consultants, design houses, architects, engineers, main contractors, specialist contractors, sub-contractors, sub-subcontractors, of many layers, individual traders, BIM evangelists, BIM consultants, BIM software providers, and of course the workforce. The list appears endless, for big and small. There has to be a benefit path identified for all, and then plans developed for benefit realization for all.
According to the UK ONS CONSTRUCTION OUTPUT: VOLUME SEASONALLY ADJUSTED, the 2015 total for all work was £134,345m. That is a big number. For every 5% saving in efficiency the number is £6,717m. Lots of boats in the flotilla but the number is big enough to go around and give everyone a benefit, including the 2m plus workforce. This change is not just about money though, it also includes professional standing, community interfaces, relationships between companies and individuals, work life balance, health at work, and social fabric. It is big change, but well worth it.
Carrot ending, not stick.
Reply to Comments
When I have spoken to Andrew he has always been passionate about it all joining up. Holistic BIM makes more sense than hollywood BIM and then add requirements management and systems engineering and you start to get whole solutions. When adopted by the chain, this can engender big change, and big savings / profits. Then you can start adding externals such as the internet of things and big data.
Change Part 2 – the vehicles of BIM implementation
A B C
A B C
[Posted in LinkedIn on January 21, 2017]
The question is how to get C Suite attention?
As simple as A B C! Perhaps not.
Before we start, chose A or B in your mind. Don’t go to the end to find the correct answer. Do write your choice down if you are likely to be interrupted. It is a relatively easy choice, a simple either or.
Back to the question, how do you get C Suite attention about BIM? There I have said the three letter acronym. I could make it four letters with CIMM, Collaborative Information Management and Modelling or two letters with DR, Digital revolution.
According to the NBS National BIM Report 2016 there is 54% BIM adoption in the UK, up from 48% the previous year. Allowing for a degree of over optimistic assessments from the contributors to the survey, and a degree of natural cynicism, we will for this discussion downgrade that to 50%. (The arithmetic is easier as well). If we are generous and make an assumption that as many as 50% of those are engaged in holistic BIM, and are therefore maximising the potential benefits. That quick, un-scientific and un-substantiated calculation suggests that 75% are not getting the most out of BIM. Given apparently a construction industry population of over 2 million people there is still a lot of awareness and engagement required to get full coverage.
Congratulations to the visionaries and innovators that have seen the light, and have the support required to get into the nominal 25% of high flyer adopters. Thanks also to the volunteers and others who put their time and expertise into the like of the BIM4 community, the BIM Task Group and all the other people and organisations who have helped, cajoled, and persuaded those early adopters who were prepared to put their toes into the water. There are several excellent examples of all disciplines within the construction industry. Too many to name here. However, I will pick out Waitrose as an excellent exemplar. The John Lewis ethos, especially the long term relationships they develop fits well with the collaboration element of BIM. They understand the value proposition of BIM and are able to explain the benefits to the decision makers in terms they understand. Their BIM models looks exactly like the finished product, so the end user gets exactly what they expected and what they require. The information is passed from construction into operation and maintenance and is used to improve efficiency in both. This translates to more profits for the shareholders, which happen to be the staff, it is the John Lewis Partnership after all is said, and less cost for the customers. Greater competitiveness and staff wellbeing.
The big challenge is how are we to get the other 1.5 million people up to speed with the industry transformation? Surely it is too large a group to be ignored or cast aside. It has taken a number of years to get to where we are. There are only 3years left to meet the ambition of BIM Level 2 as business as usual by 2020.
Ideally the change required to meet the challenge will come from the top. No, not the government but from the C-Suite of the companies and organisations in the industry. Still with the help of the BIM4 community and the UKBIM Alliance taking over from the BIM Task Group, together with the continued support of all the others that understand, and are happy to share their BIM ideas and experience.
Given that the C-Suite are already busy with lots to attend to, how do you get their attention?
You tell them about the savings and increased profitability, and you get the cynicism appropriate to the good thing that has dropped of the back of a lorry. The business case is not yet demonstrated. The investment does not provide the required return. Nothing can be that good. It is just a fad, and will not catch on. ‘The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty … ‘
Perhaps they do take enough notice to ask for information from their advisors. That is a big step forward, and should be recognised as such. However, the advisors don’t always have the knowledge, understanding, or expertise to be able to give the appropriate advice.
Will the C-Suite even open a pamphlet if one were produced specifically for them? If it were only two pages long it might fulfil the Executive Summary concept, but will have far too little information to enable constructive strategic decisions. In fact, when I write strategies I do not include an Executive Summary as such big decisions should not be made based just a small fraction of the information contained in the whole strategy.
Let us consider what else might influence the C-Suite, of CEO, CFO, CTO, COO, CIO, CCO, CLO etc. Perhaps the shareholders may have an impact. Perhaps the Fund Managers should take an interest. Given that the BIM adopters are already making some of the savings reported to be available and that they are most likely to outperform the construction industry both in terms of growth and dividends, it would make sense for Fund Managers and Investment Advisers know about BIM, the reported benefits. Then of course they would be better placed to assess if companies were managing that element of their business well, and were therefore worth investing in. Conversely, those companies that were ignoring BIM may become downgraded as an investment opportunity.
The Banking community may also be interested and start influencing the Construction Industry C-Suite. Again, with the greater success of the companies adopting holistic BIM there is of course the converse which could be construed as additional risk. Banks tend to take an adverse view about risk, especially if they stand to lose out if a company defaults.
BIM in the Health and Safety arena might save lives and avoid accidents. Failure to adopt known techniques of avoidance may be construed in such a way as to result in prosecutions which could possibly include some of the C-Suite as well as the organisation. Risk to liberty may provide sufficient influence.
The newspapers may provide some influence to the C-Suite, but I have been informed that the printed newspaper is in its death throws, or maybe put more sympathetically as being in decline. However, digital newspapers are on the rise. I wonder about the demographic of the digital newspaper in terms of influencing the C-Suite. Wider media may also be considered.
Why would wider media be interested in BIM? Let us consider BIM on a wider stage. BIM applied on infrastructure will reduce the costs of the intervention or project. It was once said that costs are 1:10:100 in respect of design, construction, and operation and maintenance. I suspect we should include demolition and decommissioning in the split, and acknowledge that the current figures are somewhat different. The idea however is still the same, the greatest saving is in the operation and maintenance phase. Hence the best of the savings are still to come. Infrastructure investment is generally public sector. The more we as an industry invest in BIM the greater the savings in construction costs, followed by a substantial reduction in ongoing costs. This could result in a reduction in taxes, but a more probable outcome would be just a reduction of the increase required.
Similarly building costs would be reduced. The less a building costs to design, construct, operate and maintain, the less those costs have to feed into the cost of living, either in the cost of the products we buy or the homes we live in.
If the cost of living and the cost of the public purse either reduce or do not increase as much as they may have otherwise done, it could make GB plc more competitive. A hypothetical example. A widget form the Far East costs £1.00, and £1.03 including transport costs. A similar widget costs £1.50 with a Union Flag and made in Britain on the packaging. It takes a high degree of philanthropy, social conscience, or economic awareness to ignore such a significance base price difference. However, there are cost pressures in the Far East including increased wages which will increase their costs faster that GB costs with the benefit of BIM downward pressures will make that difference much less, and taking the quality control differential, i.e. the percentage of non-merchantable product included in the shipment, the variance could become so slight that it is feasible to return to ‘Made in Britain’. Could this be the socioeconomic story that will get the media to become interested and to influence the C-Suite?
Back to the question at the top of the article. Did you chose A or B. There was no relevant information for you to make an informed decision. It was a totally random question without any meaning or true result. Accordingly it has no impact here either. That is not the case with the decisions the C-Suite have to make. BIM, implemented properly, and used properly, provides for informed decisions. Generally speaking informed decisions result in better outcomes than 50/50 bets. Information is a key element of BIM, and obviously an essential component of informed decisions. So the question should be restated as E or F. Expanding or Failing. That is the choice facing the C Suite now.
How do we get their attention?
Please answer in the comments.
Change Part 2 – the vehicles of BIM implementation
[Posted in LinkedIn on September 13, 2016]
Let us assume from the first instance that leaders, CEOs, CIOs, MDs and the like have all acknowledged the need for change. Accepted that it is sink or swim, flounder or flourish, and that their ship is in peril. I know that that is an erroneous assumption, but it is necessary to allow us to move on without another round of why. The why is by now a given, it is time to start bailing out, and then start the steering.
Change is upon us in various guises. It could be called BIM, information revolution, digital revolution, or Digital Built Britain, or many other names or acronyms between. We have the why change, but what is change?
What is change?
There are many books and courses which will tell you about change. Part of the problem here though is that society itself has changed, and not always for the better. The willingness to read, and I make no apologies for the length of this article, has diminished. The attention span has decreased. The modes of gathering and exchanging information have changed significantly. The internet rules. Even there it is difficult. Talking to a VLOGer recently, you have to grab your audience within 30secs and expect to hold them for no longer than 3mins, and that is with a subject that they chose to search out and watch. Instagram, twitter, instant, small snippets of information, with no depth.
I have exceeded my 3mins, so get on and change the world.
However, for those that want to continue, back to what is change, in this context. Perhaps we can consider it as a desire to promote a profession, a group of people, a process, or a product. Perhaps it is a desire to change an outcome, whether that is to increase profitability, improving employee satisfaction and retention, and recruitment, promote employee wellbeing, including Health and Safety, develop efficiency and sustainability. Perhaps it is to be philanthropic and do something for society. In any of these, change is fundamentally there to influence something or someone. Generally, the something is controlled by a someone. Therefore, is it fair to distil it down to change is the act of influencing someone to achieve a desired outcome?
How to change?
Is how to change the most difficult part? How to influence people when people are so diverse in so many different communities, with so many different objectives. Impossible to get right! No, it all follows the same principles. Think about painting the wall in the earlier post. Or getting in the specialist to do the bathroom. There are the stakeholders. Those that you wish to influence and those that will have an influence on the outcome of your efforts. If you are a client you may think that all you have to do is get the executive board on board, and then give the edict for everyone to follow. If you are a fifth tier subcontractor, you may think it is just a case of changing everything you think and do for the latest demand of the tier above. Perhaps you have a readership, or membership just waiting for the next bout of wisdom. All of these are doomed, and not in a St Paul’s Cathedral way. You have to identify your stakeholders, categorise them, loosely. Then you have to plan how you are going to influence them. Hold on, have I missed something. Yes. Before you can start to influence them you need to have a very clear understanding of what outcome you want to change. What are the objectives of your change programme? The mission statement as it were. Is there a clear link between the outcome you want to achieve and the influence you are going to apply? If so, you can start to develop a strategy.
Before you can influence any of the stakeholders that you have identified you need to be able to communicate with them effectively. There are many forms of communication, all with various levels of success. The most important part of the communication is to get people to listen. What do you think is the proportion of people watching a particular advertisement on the TV that take any notice of it? How many could tell you what it was about in an hour’s time? If that is the case why are so many millions spent on TV ads? Internet, street, newspaper, and magazine ads? Our communication must be so much more successful than advertising. The communication must be targeted according to stakeholder, where they are on the grief curve, their attitudes and benefits, their interrelationships, and where they are on the change management plan. Already, we have a complex matrix, and one size does not fit all. However the path broadly follows;
· Awareness
· Inform and explain
· Engage
· Educate and train
Then comes implement, mentor and support.
How this communication plan manifests itself depends on the audience, however, due cognizance must always be given to the makeup of the stakeholder body. The communication streams or activity streams for one group may be;
· Communications and events
· Technical papers and publications
· Interaction with professional bodies
· Working with educational establishments
For another group it may be;
· Internal workforce and consultants
· Other departments
· Clients
· Supply Chain
· Product providers
· Industry associations
Each stream has to be developed dependent upon the stakeholder analysis and the desired influence to be applied to create the desired change in outcome.
Once this is aligned it is possible to complete the change strategy paper and to commence populating the streams with activities against the timeline. To create a matrix communications plan.
We need to get used to change and become adept at it as it is going to be with us, in the construction industry in particular, for at least the next decade. We need to become agile, innovative, efficient, and collaborative to cope with this rate of change. We also need to accept that it must be done progressively to succeed. Expect to revisit some things and change them again. We are not ready and not capable to make that one big step, we have to feel our way with small steps, but always in the right direction.
That is the why, what, how. The who, when, and where are down to you!
Signalling the benefits of collaborative BIM
Signalling the benefits of collaborative BIM
[Posted in LinkedIn in 2015]
Signalling the benefits of collaborative BIM at Manchester Victoria. Another good article about the successful implementation of BIM at Manchester Victoria Station Redevelopment https://lnkd.in/e6h-V-K or skip the LinkedIn link and go directly to the CES article CES article November 2015 - page 27 and CES article November 2015 - page 28
A Google Maps image from 15 October 2023 with the finished Manchester Victoria Station.
Some links to photos from inside Manchester Victoria Station.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oPuTkZB4fAU5JGpq7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZhZfef62gmj8PCBRA
Also part of the historic restored elements.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6N2WR35c4dd2oAMs7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/8KmJrM134DLQn6uR8
At the time of this work I was working for Hyder Consulting and had an involvement in instigating the successful use of BIM. Morgan Sindall should also be acknowledged as leading proponents of BIM at the time. I had worked with Steve Brunning on the Crossrail Project.
BIM4 H&S Group publishes Strategy
BIM4 H&S Group publishes Strategy
October 2015
BIM4 Health and Safety Steering Group – Strategy
Strategy Paper for BIM4 H&S Group
Vision / Primary Objective
The primary objective of the steering group is to improve Health and Safety in the Construction industry and subsequently within the Built Environment by the appropriate use and adoption of BIM and associated digital innovations and initiatives.
Strap line
Creating a healthier and safer Britain within the Built Environment, and leading by example, the World
Mission Statement
The steering group will strive to enhance the identification, avoidance, and mitigation of hazards and risks within all stages of the whole life of an asset by the use of BIM within the construction industry. Hazards and risks identified will be recorded and passed on in a structured digital format to all of the remaining stages of the whole life of an asset including operation and demolition.
Elements of BIM
“BIM will become the established way of doing work in construction” Peter-Hansford
BIM itself is evolving, in a continuous state of progressive change. One constant however, is that BIM is a different way of working.
- Collaboration (real not pretend contractual)
- Sharing information (near real time)
- Designing together – all disciplines (not sequentially), including constructability.
- All about the ASSET – Totally asset focused
- Widget, car, school, hospital, station, plane, Heathrow, railway, road / motorway network, utilities network
- For the Whole life of the Asset
- Building – safely, efficiently and cost effectively
- Operating – using reliable, easy to access information
It is about information, the flow and management of information to and from all of the stakeholders, throughout the whole lifecycle of the asset. Note that it is not just the lifecycle of the project, but that of the asset as a whole.
The information has to be managed, which includes being stored, shared, disseminated, retrieved, collated, compared, searched and archived to name a few. Information is the key.
The primary elements of BIM and BIM implementation are therefore established as;
- Technical
- Process
- Codification, and
- Behaviour
These headings can be utilised as far as health and safety is concerned.
Technical
Consider technical as being computer software and hardware, peripherals, site equipment, tablets, special glasses, ‘caves’, and interactive collaboration suites.
The majority of the computer software and hardware do not require adaption or change to provide enhanced Health and Safety. Market forces and other elements of the initiative can be left to deal with computer software and hardware. Generally, the same applies to the Common Data Environment.
Process
The main BIM processes are well defined within other elements of the BIM initiative. These processes may be refined as BIM continues to develop. The stage gates and phases are prescribed and we should take due cognizance and conform, whilst reviewing with a Health and Safety / Hazard and Risk perspective. Particular note may be given to the frequency of data transfer, between the handover points specified in PAS 1192-2.
Codification
Data is just data without a structured and consistent codification to translate that data into useful information. There can be many datasets associated with BIM. This is a significant area for the development of a Health and Safety / Hazard and Risk codification, in conjunction with existing risk management practices and Standards. It is also an area for review of the structure of COSHH data to provide digital data sets. The same applies for maintenance information. A pdf attached to the model does not make it digital information.
Behaviours
Behaviour is a very interesting element as it has the potential to make the whole of BIM work, and conversely, to stop it in its tracks. People will choose to adopt the processes and better practices, or not, irrespective, to an extent, of what they are told to do. Construction workers still knowingly walk between moving vehicles, or work at height without protection. Designers and Engineers still produce designs that are difficult to construct and inherently less safe than they could or should be. Getting the behaviours right is the key to the most beneficial implementation of BIM. It also has a high impact on Health and Safety.
Collaboration is a significant area of the behavioural change, but there are also individual personal elements as well.
Phases
The phases are broadly Pre-Design, Design, Construct, Operate, and Demolish (Recycle).
There are a number of similar Plan of Works, with the most well-known being the RIBA Plan of Works. The RIBA plan of works had a significant change in 2013/14 and is now broadly similar to that contained within PAS 1192-2:2013. We will adopt the latter for the sake of consistency within the BIM products and this covers the following areas:
- Brief,
- Concept,
- Design,
- Definition,
- Build & Commission,
- Handover & Closeout,
- Operation,
- In use.
Aims of the Strategy
The aims of the steering group to achieve the vision are;
- To educate, and inform the construction (AEC) industry regarding the benefits of BIM and innovations and initiatives in respect of whole life Health and Safety.
- To persuade the construction (AEC) industry to adopt appropriate and proportionate BIM practices so as to improve Health and Safety for the whole life of the asset.
- To provide guidance and specifications to the construction (AEC) industry regarding methods of digital recording and transferring information gathered in respects of Hazards and risks identified and actions and decisions taken regarding avoidance and mitigation.
- To integrate with other BIM and risk communities and their respective guidance and specifications.
- To drive performance improvement, and associated Health & Safety enhancements through collaboration and information.
- To promote and facilitate an active BIM4 H&S community.
Communication Spectrum
There is a very broad spectrum of types of communication, many with different purposes. By reference to our above stated aims we will group our communications into the ‘inform, persuade, and prescribe’, areas of the communications spectrum.
Inform encompasses; Aware, Inform, Educate.
Persuade encompasses; Engage, Case Studies, Benefits
Prescribe encompasses; Contract, Standards (PAS, BS, ISO), Legislation.
Proposals
There appears to be a matrix of potential work streams developing. Each axis of the matrix could be described as the Elements of BIM, the Phases, and the Communication Spectrum.
- The easiest proposal would be to have a small working group for each of the nodes in the matrix. That would equate to a lot of working groups even using the broad phases. (4x5x3 = 60). It would be very challenging to create a coordinated and consistent approach across so many disparate work streams.
- An alternative proposal would be to select one of the three axes of the matrix as the primary, and set up working groups accordingly. Each working group would include the nodes of the other two within its scope.
- The final proposal is to continue to work collaboratively on all areas of the matrix together, but not necessarily at the same time. This will result in a higher level of engagement and satisfaction than either proposal A or B. However, it is also acknowledged that it will probably take longer. The end products will be better than if done separately. As BIM is in part preaching collaboration, it would be good to demonstrate the same.
This strategy recommends the adoption of proposal C.
Method(s) of approach
Whilst the main BIM 4 H&S Group could remain the same size and constituency it may be necessary to co-opt in additional parties, as identified by gap analysis of the needs of the strategy.
Presentations from different areas of the industry should continue to aid the development of the products and solutions. The coordination of those presentations could be informed or structured from the above Elements of BIM.
The flexibility of the group should be maintained and due cognizance and consideration always given to the participants being volunteers giving up their own or their company’s time and money to attend and contribute.
The BIM 4 H&S Group has already taken on some short term goals, alongside the development of a longer term strategy. These short term goals are articulated in the ;
- Sharing and capturing examples of the benefits of BIM to H&S
- Working towards establishing a set of principles to guide the production and use of health and safety information in the BIM process. This may result in development of a PAS, starting later in 2015.
Strategic Plan
Additional reading
BIM Shorts
A collection of short articles about BIM. Perhaps not an integrated part of the Step by Step guidance, but still potentially useful.
The London Bridge project progresses
The London Bridge project progresses
[Posted in LinkedIn 2014]
The London Bridge project progresses as evidenced by the Network Rail video. Network Rail and Costain operate it as a BIM project. The sequence seen played out in the timelapse video could have been tested many times in the virtual environment of the BIM federated model. Construction sequences can be tested and honed in the 4D BIM model improving safety, efficiency, risk, and increasing the probability of handing back on time.
The original Network Rail article link no longer works and the article does not appear to be in the archive.
There is a video sequence in the first link below.
Note, the shape of the platform canopies was sketched on a scrap of paper, and then created in BIM.
Additional Reading
BIM and my Freezer
BIM and my Freezer
[Posted in LinkedIn on September 2015]
Last week my freezer died. Nothing special in that, I hear you say. Well true, apart that it was over thirty years old and this is the first problem I have had with it. I could hear the motor and the Dichlorodifluoromethane gurgling away in the pipes. Cooling effect was however totally absent. It was a Phillips, bought in the early 1980s, with a stack on top Fridge from the same manufacturer.
As an aside Dichlorodifluoromethane, was one of my favourite words at school, along with antidisestablishmentarianism. They just so flow off the tongue.
To give some context, the Fridge and the Freezer were bought before the invention of the WWW and before Wi-Fi.
What a difference there is in just such a relatively short time. To purchase the Fridge and Freezer I would have walked around Ipswich going to various stores picking up catalogues and leaflets of different manufacturers. Then back home to read them. I would have also found the appropriate edition of Which? I would have read the review and checked out the ‘Best Buys’, compared with the manufacturers’ literature, and a short list compiled. Another trip into town the following weekend, traipsing around the same shops, collecting details about price, delivery, and availability. Ipswich had at the time a wonderful coffee shop with a huge selection of beans ready to be ground or sold. Blue Mountain was our favourite. Neither Starbucks nor Costa had proliferated the High Street. Coffee and cake later, the choice had been made. A walk back to the shop and the order was placed. Delivery 10 to 14 days? The delivery driver would not be phoning on his mobile to let me know that he was half an hour away. He would not have a mobile phone.
My freezer had a red light to indicate that something was not right. It did not however send me a message to my activity monitor on my wrist. The Internet of Things and the Smart Refrigerator are already here. Technology has had a massive shift in those thirty years.
Instant Information
Now I can just find all that information on the internet, the WWW, in a matter of hours. Payment is just as easy, and immediate, and delivery within the week, on a specified day of my choice with some providers, even next day.
What a difference. Near instant information, all reliable and up to date. Also, consider the efficiency. Hours, instead of weeks. No trips into town, and what’s more I can go to almost any part of the country from the comfort of my armchair, or indeed any part of the world, if I am prepared to pay the postage.
The Common Data Environment, (CDE), an integral part of BIM, fulfils broadly the same function.
The CDE provides a single source of the truth effectively and efficiently.
This is part of the BIM benefit.
Employer’s Information Requirements – EIR
Employer’s Information Requirements – EIR
[Posted in LinkedIn on September 7, 2016]
Our current contracts generally state what the product is, the processes to be adopted, the communications to be had, and the information to be exchanged. Firmly sat in a master servant relationship. After all, the client / master has the money.
How would you like your eggs sir?
Let’s look at a slightly different scenario. The master comes down to breakfast and is greeted by his servant, and asked “What would you like for breakfast, Sir”, quickly followed by, “How would you like your eggs, Sir?” The servant goes to the kitchen, and exclaims “The Master’s down early. He wants eggs. I guess he wants them the way he normally does.” ”But the frying pan is in the dishwasher. He likes his eggs fried on brown toast. We can’t keep him waiting.” “How long will it take for the dishwasher to finish?” “I haven’t got time for that, and the bread hasn’t arrived yet” “Phone the shop and get them to rush the brown bread and add a new frying pan to the order”
OR
“What would you like for breakfast, Sir”, followed by, “How would you like your eggs, Sir? I know the frying pan is still in the dishwasher.” “I am happy to wait, I have not got an early meeting to go to. I will have my usual, two fried eggs, sunny side up, on toast. Preferably brown bread, but white will do if not.”
Not only is the latter a clearer specification for the requirements of breakfast it is a more collaborative exchange of information. Even less master servant. The same example could be construed in a café with customer / waitress exchange if you prefer.
What do we want out of our EIR?
In fact let’s go back further than that, what do we want out of our Contract, a relationship. As a client we want our proposed facility, to perform its designated function, provided safely, on time, to budget, and to the quality we specified. All with the minimum of fuss and no reputational damage. Not a lot to ask. As a main contractor we want to have a happy customer, bank a profit, minimise risk, get everyone home safely, and improve our reputation.
If considered carefully, there are significant areas of alignment there. Working on that basis everybody can have a smile.
So let’s think about the core elements of the contract again. The contract that is going to provide the win/win, smiles on face, outcome.
In 1904 a west to east line via central London was proposed. Jumping forward a few decades, a cross London line was proposed. The requirements were for a mixed freight and high capacity, high frequency passenger line. This requirement morphed into a requirement of 24 trains per hour in the central section, with the freight element being dropped as it was both impractical to diagram freight paths in such a high frequency passenger service and difficult to maintain the railway at night with traffic. The side benefit was of course smaller tunnels and reduced cost.
The requirement developed over time and as the project progressed. Even after construction started the fundamental requirements have altered, in as much as Crossrail is now going to Reading.
What the client requires leads to the specification. The requirements should be dealt with in a tiered and hierarchical manner. The specification is part of the requirements. There are elements which have a direct correlation with the core requirement and some which may be considered secondary or tertiary. Obviously tertiary elements have a low impact on the core requirement.
The same thought process can be applied to the process to be written into the contact. Processes are generally dictated by the client to ensure the smooth running of the contract to provide the desired outcome and to give warning of any potential problems.
The communications requirements can be considered on their own right or as part of the process requirements.
All three can be considered the Employer’s Requirements, and written and managed in the traditional Requirements Management fashion with verification and validation followed by self-assurance.
Employer’s Information Requirements are part of the BIM drive. I didn’t want to put process here as it is so much more.
As such, they should seek to be more collaborative than normal contracts. There are obviously some core elements in the same way that there are core elements of the specification. However, some of the secondary and all of the tertiary elements could and should be left as to be developed by the parties.
BIM is about collaboration. Sharing information. Not about master and servant. Accordingly, all of the four forms of requirement should be considered for a more collaborative, more engaging form of writing in the lower levels. This will not only provide a better relationship, but will promote discourse to provide better experiences and better outcomes.
Developing the right behaviours to deliver to best outcomes.
A glimpse into the future of procurement
A glimpse into the future of procurement
[Posted in LinkedIn on September 6, 2016]
The first thing to note is the absence of BIM in the title. This reflects the predicted future where BIM is no longer hype, the buss word, the revolution hook, nor the government mandate, to be struggled with. BIM has grown up, changed its name, and is no longer a spotty teenager trying to find its way in life. BIM has morphed and is now inextricably part of the day job. The plethora of BIM managers, all of a different hue, with different skillsets and competencies, and significantly varying experience have coalesced and been subsumed into normal project team or company roles.
What has happened to procurement in this time? Not just because of Brexit, but because change was necessary.
The first thing to change is the artificial concept of a level playing field for all to play on. It is not just the turf that is artificial, it is the whole concept. It is a measure to allow external competition to enter a market supposedly without disadvantage. Who does that benefit? Competition is meant to be good for the customer, or in our language the client. However, when generating that competition cost the clients millions of pounds in procurement fees and lost time it has to be questioned as to whether it is effective. In a shop scenario, competition makes sense. It keeps the traders honest, as it were. The customer has choice in both service and price for the same product and quality. That competition does not cost the customer anything. Conversely, lack of completion may cost dearly. Applying the same basic economics to complex construction projects is at best ill conceived. Put a fence around the level playing field and make it level and fair for those invited to tender or negotiate.
Fraud avoidance. Yes, a good thing, but keep the efforts to avoid fraud, collusion, covers, and cartels proportionate to the risk. Also, make the penalties disproportionately harsh compared to the benefits, and if that brings the company down, then so be it. More difficult with cartels as the industry would suffer by being deprived of the product in question, but still painful, as with the Ready Mixed Concrete fines in 1995. The adjunct to the stick is the carrot. Reward people and companies for being good.
Emphasise the good not the bad.
In previous writings I have talked about behaviours and how important it is to include behaviours as part of the procurement process and the tender marking scheme. It is a given that this is adopted in this vision of the future. After all is said and done, which is the more compelling message?
- The tigers will be extinct it the wild before BIM is normal, give me three pounds now to stop this happening (maybe). OR
- Go and see the wonderful beautiful tigers in their native habitat, in sustainable eco-tourism helping the local community to have a vested interest in a strong and healthy tiger population.
Emphasis on the good and not the bad will generate better outcomes. Collaboration is a key element of better performance. In the digital age of the future information will be all around us, easy to share and assimilate. It will be centrally available, and consistently correct and reliable. I was going to put accurate but thought of a current discussion in Survey4BIM.
Teams work better together. Collaboration, both internal to the team and external, improves performance, wellbeing, efficiencies, and profitability. Teams are formed of people with different attributes, competencies, characteristics, experiences, and skill sets. In general, better outcomes. Better relationships.
I used to work for a company that had a rule to break up internal project teams every three projects, somewhere between 6 -10 years. That seems to work for me on so many different levels. Individual progression and experience, anti-fraud, complacency. There is a loss, but it can be managed.
It therefore seems perverse to breakup successful teams at the end of every project just because the Procurement Rules dictate it, at least by effect if not by the letter. If, over the years you have developed a successful, meaningful, collaborative, working relationship with your supply chain or with your client, why would anyone what to go through the pain of a divorce and then follow up with dating (is e-procurement internet dating?), followed by marriage, and then another divorce. Each time round the wedding maybe slightly cheaper, but is that the most beneficial long term outcome for the parties. I think not.
However, if it is not working, back to the marketplace to try again. To build another relationship.
It is after all, relationships which make or break projects and companies.
How does this fit with talk of the future being a gig economy with construction being populated with small pop-ups. Well, it doesn’t. While I can see certain elements of the economy going down that route I am not convinced that it applies to construction.
Would you as a client want to employ a main contractor to build your bridge, when that entity was a pop-up formed for that purpose? Is that how the film industry works? Each project a separate company such that if it sinks, the parent is as healthy as before? I suspect not. It used to be said that the first rule of contracting was to make sure the contractor was big enough to complete the job, and sound enough to be sued if he doesn’t. That philosophy does not seem to work with a pop-up.
Relationship over cost.
Developing good working relationships takes time, commitment, effort, and cost. Good procurement is the same. Instead of procurement being about the best cost, or MEAT, it should be about the best outcome, and that includes Health and Safety, quality, time, cost, and relationships.
“I like what you have done on the project that you are currently completing, let’s see if we can work out something for the next one. Let’s work together to see if there is a sweet spot to allow us to develop it together. “
I can almost hear the cries of the procurement team.
The relationship is the key over the start or tender cost. The relationship will minimise cost escalation and thereby the final cost, which is in fact more important than the starting or tender price. The final cost is the true indicator to compare with the Business Case or potential Return on Investment. How often is it a case of, “if I knew it was going to cost that much, I would not have started.”
The relationship is not one way though. To work properly it has to be symbiotic and mutually beneficial. Clients must change as must the business model of the supply chain.
Looking backward to the fee structure of the design houses. The price was set, but the competition was for innovation, quality, and service. Was that such a bad thing? Now we have a price led offering. How has that worked out for you? It is cheaper, but is it better?
The main contractor who turns in a 3% profit for the year. Has he done well? Admittedly, these days, it is on a very low capital cost, with almost all the earthmoving, cranes, and general plant outsourced. Accordingly, the low profit perhaps masks a higher ROI. The annual profit contains jobs that went well as well as those that did not. It is such a slim margin that it does not take a lot to spin it downward towards the hostile red line. If it is an individual project that is heading towards the red, then relationships invariably and inevitably change for the worse. The client pays more, the project team stresses and health issues appear.
So where is the fundament change? The business model of the industry needs to change fundamentally. A client wants advice in the first instance. Feasibility studies and outline design. Surveyors and design houses need to be well paid for their input and efforts, not as mere commodities. In exchange, they need to provide correct, comprehensive and valuable information and advice. In my mind it is impossible to recommend a solution or route for a potential project if you have only considered the engineering. What about the cost, the time, the constructability, the operation, the maintenance, and ultimately the replacement of the asset. All of these need to be considered to some degree at the feasibility stage, and at all subsequent stages where they remain relevant. Otherwise the decisions made are not based on sufficient information and may indeed be erroneous. Poor decisions led to excess expenditure, generally far outweighing the cost of good advice, provided by suitably remunerated experienced experts. Then the client wants an asset constructed. The main contractor should be paid a fee based on a profit of 10% or more. A high reward industry would enable better behaviours and better outcomes, with less adversarial activity. This works with the collaboration and long term relationships. The fee could have a carefully structured award structure to increase the profit in certain measured circumstances. Conversely it could be decreased for poor behaviours. Given the target of long beneficial relationships there is a lot to lose with wayward activities, thereby generally avoiding the use of the stick. Budgets are derived and shared. The contractor has an imbedded interest to provide the asset or product to specification, with self-assurance, at the time required at a reasonable and minimal cost. Such cost could be monitored against budget, business case, benchmarking, and due process.
The key is to move from bottom feeders to free swimming higher order, well rewarded, high performing, and efficient organisms. A healthier, more sustainable industry with better efficiencies and practices providing the desired cost reductions. It all starts with how you procure.
BIM - How wide is it?
BIM – How wide is it?
[Posted in LinkedIn on June 30, 2016]
The BIM development and implementation community is rightly made up of several elements. Each looking at a small slice of the wider BIM. That can be by industrial sector, by discipline, or by one of the four core elements, Technology, Process, Codification and People.
This is totally understandable and necessary, akin the eating the elephant one bite at a time. However, we should not forget about the elephant, least it becomes the elephant in the corner. We should be aware of the tendency of building new silos to perpetuate our current way of working. To retain our comfort zone. Occasionally we need to look back at the whole elephant, and then even further or wider into the herd. The Elephant Herd is a complex collection of interacting entities.
BIM is complex in itself, but it is also part of the herd. Requirements management can help with the structure of the EIR and help join the ER and EIR together. Validation and verification can help with data assurance and date integrity. Accuracy and tolerance can be managed in the same ways as have already been established for a long time if carefully brought into the taxonomy, nomenclature and language of BIM. Systems Engineering can help dissolve some of the silos and bring the whole together, resolving some of the discipline led problems along the way. Asset and location centric thought processes will help clarify the way to the goals.
We could also look to the taxonomy of the elephant to help us feel the width of BIM. Linnaean taxonomy was created in 1753 and started with three kingdoms, Animal, Plant, and Mineral. (Is that a radio show, Twenty Questions?). This structure has since metamorphosed into five kingdoms (or six, dependent upon nationality) and then to three domains in the current Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Two and a half centuries later and the basic taxonomy still stands but is still evolving. BIM will change and continue to evolve.
Keep working at developing the understanding of the cell, that when taken with other cells makes up the elephant, but from time to time, take a breath, and look at the elephant, the herd, and the environment in which the herd exists, and never forget about the people.
3D fly through of New By-pass
3D fly through of New By-pass
Attached to this news article is an excellent 3D fly through of a New By-pass for Norwich. It has sufficient detail to be able to reasonably accurately plot the path on Google Maps including finding properties impacted. The reverse fly confirms the plot. Pity about the top of the tractor maze at Fir Covert Road. The article does not mention BIM but I expect that the fly through has its roots in BIM and was used in the consultation and development to good effect. Well done to those concerned.
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2015/11/27/balfour-beatty-signs-104m-norfolk-road-deal/
Google Maps showing the route of the new by-pass following construction.
...
Railways
Cancellation of part of HS2
HS2 Folly
[Originally Posted on LinkedIn on 8 Oct 2023}
Sad times. ☹
Why have a High-Speed Line?
Many years ago, perhaps decades, I was privileged to see a glimpse into the future of railways in Britain. Just an A4 sheet, with a map of a High-Speed network overlaid on the then existing rail network. If memory serves, it had HS1 all the way to HS8, and only HS1, the CTRL was already built.
Years later we saw the commencement of HS2, albeit in a piecemeal fashion. It had ambitions, presumably supported by both the Government of the day and the Opposition, as it had all party support. Not only to construct a railway, but also to be a window to the world of excellence.
An exemplary project that not only utilised the latest technology and techniques, but was leading the way in sustainability, environmental issues, training and apprenticeships, and diversity. It also set out to be fair to its communities, such as paying a fair valuation plus 10%. Reading the news, the latter ideal may have been scuppered some time ago. All such aspirations come at a cost.
It is irrational to compare the cost per mile of the Chinese High-Speed network, which has added 25,000 km in the time it has taken us to complete zero miles. There are so many differences that the two are just not analogous.
If fact, it is questionable that Britain is suitable for any internal High-Speed lines. It is too small and is too densely populated, with the conurbations too close together to make worthwhile gains in speed. However, firstly, that argument starts to weaken with the use of new signalling technology and new trains. Also, if the new lines are integrated with the existing, there are not only journey time enhancements, but also, and most importantly, capacity and reliability enhancements. Very significant ones.
When the West Coast Route Modernisation was taking place on the live West Coast Mainline, it was clear to see how much a weekend closure had on services, people, and costs. Perhaps it is fair to say that those involved in that project would never want to do that again, in that fashion. It should also be noted that it was not cheap. How many years of live railway disruption were caused by the WCRM?
A relatively recent report drawn up to establish how many new paths could be sold in regard to the Southern, London end, of the WCML. The answer was zero. The WCML is so close to 100% capacity that squeezing any additional paths would potentially risk severely impacting the rest of the service.
Building an additional route, away from the existing infrastructure, will make significant improvements to both the new line and the existing line. It is the only way to improve the WCML service.
The existing line may consist of services travelling at between 100 – 125 mph, for the fast passenger trains, some travelling more slowly and stopping more frequently. Then there are the stopping services. Individually, the latter probably don’t cover the same distance as the fast passenger services, but collectively can do. Then add the freight services. There is such a huge range of speeds and stopping profiles that it is difficult to create a set of reliable integrated services. Take out the fast passenger service and it is easier to balance all the needs of the other remaining services making them more reliable and generating extra capacity. The additional capacity can be used for increasing the frequency of the local services, and enabling more freight trains.
All of the above can only happen when there is the alternative route.
Looking into the more distant future.
Electric vehicles.
Let’s start with the peak oil theory and the resultant petering out of availability. I think I have read that the current peak production prediction is 2040. (Aside; when was the Manchester leg due to be finished)
There is also a climate change imperative to move away from the use of fossil fuels. This has given rise to an increasing adoption of electric cars. There is an ongoing problem with the available range of the current cars. Speed of charging has improved but is still an issue. Taken at random, South Mimms Service Station has 540 car parking spaces. At the same place there are 4 electric car chargers with a maximum power of 150kw. For an all-electric car future with every parking space having a rapid charger this site alone will require in excess of a 20Mw supply. Multiply that by all the service areas on the motorways. It soon becomes inconceivable that National Grid has the infrastructure capacity to service that need. Nor is it likely that the country will be in a position to be able to generate sufficient electricity to service this need. Hence, without being anti-motorist, long car journeys will become more difficult in the medium future. Increased capacity on the rail network is therefore an imperative to enable net zero, or anything like it. A similar line of thought. It is more difficult to move goods with electric powered trucks. Accordingly, there will need to be a drive towards more goods to be transported by rail, followed by local distribution by electric vehicles.
Let’s also look at the end of new petrol and diesel cars, and start with the date of 2030. Allow say 15 years, on average, for the last petrol and diesel cars to go into a graceful retirement. Giving a tending toward 100% electric car population by 2045. Add another 5 years for the recent shift. Hence by 2050 Britain must have either an alternate long range transport network or have achieved a massive shift in car charging infrastructure and electricity generation and distribution. OR stop moving!
Add to that as the population shifts to electric cars so the use of petrol and diesel will decline. Hence, not only will the wholesale cost of fuel rise so will the additional cost at the filling station. The need for just filling stations will go down and there will consequently be fewer filling stations available. Back to the days of plotting journeys base on availability of fuel, or more recently, charging stations. Fuel prices at the pump will increase significantly and availability will decrease significantly.
Splash and dash will not be an option for EV so the shape of the filling stations will have to evolve. They will have to tempt you in with something to do while your EV charges. Perhaps a café, or some shopping. No longer sufficient to have a coffee machine in the corner of a convenience store attached to a filling station.
Batteries and Lithium
How can we create enough batteries for all of the required cars, and were does the Lithium come from? Will we go round the streets picking up all the discarded vapes and extract the Lithium from there? Or will we re-open the Cornish Tin Mines to start mining Lithium. Much more likely is that we will source batteries from China. We already import completed bus chassis with electric motors, and then do the coachbuilding to change it into a workable bus.
If that is the case, what is the future of the UK car manufacturing industry?
With no available alternative for long journeys, a lack of charging infrastructure, insufficient generation and distribution capacity, together with a critical material shortage. It already has a dire future.
Capability
The Prime Minister has effectively said to the world that, despite our pushing our key skills and ability to take on mega projects and bring them to fruition, and to flog same around the world, the fact is, according to his actions, he does not believe we can. If we can’t deliver in the home market, why would anyone want to employ our wares in their country.
Part of the idea of ‘going big and bold’, is that you can then sell that around the world, or at least to those that can afford it. Not completing, whether it is TSR2 or HS2, only states we are closed for business, do not buy from use. All the hidden earnings and benefits, which would have offset some of the cost, have just evaporated.
That effect is also compounded by our own sense of self-worth will have also taken a dive. The next big project we will now probably employ Americans, or some other support. Another outflowing of cash instead of homegrown.
Foresight
When Canary Wharf tube station was built it was as a cavernous, empty, cathedral like building. Far in excess of the then current requirements. Now, it could do with some additional space at peak times. Thank goodness someone had the foresight to go big. Planning for the future.
Think of the A25 near Westerham. Narrow roads, old buildings, one lane each way. First port of call, a dual carriageway bypass around the village, joining up each side with the A25 again. No, much better to go straight with replacing the A25 with the M25. I know, the M25 has been a victim of its own success, and now frequently turns into a pseudo car park. It is in desperate need of capacity enhancement, perhaps in a Birmingham Northern Relief Road type of way. Or a WCML / HS2 type of way. An express tunnel for zero emissions cars and vans only. Between the A3 and the M40. If necessary, the connection to the M25 could be limited to direction of flow. Zero emissions would reduce the ventilation requirements. Cars and vans only would reduce the required diameter of the tunnel and hence TBM. Having the portals just before the brow of the approach road would ensure rain did not flood the tunnel. The only water ingress would be on the vehicles and tyres. Reduced pumping requirements. By the time it was built there would be a significant proportion of zero emissions cars and vans, thereby reducing congestion on the M25, making journey times faster and more reliable for the vehicles not able to use the express route. Everyone is a winner. Wait, is that pretty much the same concept as HS2.
Perhaps just safeguarding the route of Crossrail 2 so that sometime in the future, it can still be built.
The Forestry Commission was established in 1919 to expand Britain's forests and woodland, which had been severely depleted during the First World War. The Commission bought large amounts of agricultural land on behalf of the state, eventually becoming the largest manager of land in Britain. Planning for the future, which was very useful for WWII.
Not selling off for development an underused railway chord. Oh, shucks, an increase in traffic means we need that functionality back, but it is built on, and people are just moving in! That is going to be a very expensive problem.
Walking out of Waterloo High-Speed terminus the day CTRL relocated to St Pancras without any attempt at mothballing. Hardly even turning off the light switch as it were.
Planning for future needs is a very important requirement.
Strategy
Creating strategies is a very important part of a government role. Having a clear understanding of the critical needs of a country and setting the direction for meeting those needs and requirements. Whether it is a supply chain, industry, transport, or defence, the strategy should be clear and consistent, as well as holistic. It should also include strategies for housing and feeding the population, together with safety, health, and security.
Changing strategy at will, in a whim does not amount to a good government. Of course, there will be time that it is necessary to change a strategy, but that has to be done with care and the rationale clearly explained and communicated.
Failure to have and maintain appropriate and relevant strategies is a failure of government.
What is the strategy decision on the rail industry and on the construction industry? I remember a time when 3 major rail electrification projects were announces at a time when there was zero industry capability. Two of the schemes had to be scraped whist industry trained itself on the remaining one. What will happen when that scheme is completed? Will those skills, and that national capability wither again?
There are so many examples of the UK being good, even excellent, at something, or even the best in the world, only to now have no capability. Employing the French and the Chinese to provide the next generation nuclear power.
Cancellations
There was a vision with HS2. Albeit separated into separate stages. There are a lot of reasons for staging a project. However, the worst connived of those is to allow the cancellation of some of those stages.
I know that one of the early changes was to add a link between HS2 and HS1, to the North of Euston, to facilitate an easy connection between the Midlands and the North through to the Continent. That has since been dropped.
The leg towards Leeds was dropped. That might have eased some capacity issues on the East Coast Main Line. Virgin Train was at one time exploring the construction of a High-Speed Line adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the East Coast Main Line but that did not get traction.
The Birmingham to Crewe section already has Royal Assent I believe. So presumably, it will require another act of Parliament to take the associated Transport Works Act off the statute.
Next to face the chop is the link from Old Oak Common, to Euston. Perhaps we can believe it is only suspended at the moment. Now there is talk of resurrecting it if there is sufficient private finance. Talk of a masterplan for Euston area. As if there was not already! Having Euston constructed by developers is just adding another layer of interface to an already complex railway infrastructure. Is it even imaginable that the current plans did not include provision for air space development. Would such development not have provided significant income, in a similar way to the area around King’s Cross.
It has taken years to design an attractive Euston Station, fit for our time. However, I suspect that the envisioned Class A building will be downgraded to a Class C, and redesigned again. A change from a thoroughbred horse to a camel. A chance for the least liked London Terminus to have a facelift and compete on the world stage, lost. Not only will there be a change in the standard of space, design, and finishes, I suspect as part of the cost saving it will be designed for a reduced capacity. After all, if you are not getting trains from North of Birmingham there will not be as many trains, and therefore less platform faces are required. Back to the foresight, or lack of. If you build a small station now, well several years from now as there is so much to do to bring in private finance and redesign everything and get a masterplan through the various planning stages. The locals are going to be absolutely ecstatic about just as all the building works are complete, after about a decade of dirt and disruption, when somebody else realises that the new Euston is too small, and needs enlarging again. Way to go!
Will there need to be a new Transport Work Act for a different procurement of a different product? They normally take at least a year to go through, and only in November if memory serves. Not enough time to create a new submission for this November, so even being optimistic, it in itself will be at least a year of delay.
All very well having meetings with potential investors, but what are the risks to them. Could the Supreme Court order the law to be complied with, whatever the executive position was. A Transport Works Act is a law and all the provisions of that law have to be complied with. I imagine, I am not a lawyer, and nor have I read the provisions of that particular TWA.
What are the costs going to be for all the indecisions, suspension, delay, and rework. They will be huge. Possibly nearing the savings potentially made.
The latest, the cancellation of the Manchester leg.
What are the capacity issues North of Birmingham? If they are similar to the Southern section, or are anticipated so to be, will there be any gain by building the Old Oak Common to Birmingham section. If that only releases congestion on one section but another section is similarly congested, there is no net gain, so what is the point?
There is evidently no strategy at play here as the government has apparently not even discussed it with Network Rail.
Does anybody know what the impact of the cancellation is likely to been. Even the ORR? Or was it all concocted in the Treasury, with perhaps some input from the Department for Transport?
Perhaps it will come out in the Public Enquiry.
Point of Curson Street Station?
What is the point of continuing with the Curson Street Station. Just down tools and abandon the sites. If nothing is going to travel onward from Birmingham, one could question the need and the scale of Curson Street Station. The government requires that £9bn of cost savings are found within the Old Oak Common to Birmingham section of HS2. Surely shortening it would help. HS2 could join the West Coast Mainline a little south of Birmingham Airport and then travel to all other destinations on the existing rail network. A new location would have to be found for the Birmingham depot of course. Some tunnels are already being built and some of the viaducts have already been constructed, but that seams to be the flavour of the month. Just do things without stating the consequences, or perhaps not even knowing or caring
Trust
How can a government, of whichever colour, be trusted if it changes its mind on such important investments. Industries as well as individuals make decisions based on the statements governments and the Opposition make. Do we invest in that area? Do we take our manufacturing to another country? Where do I trust my money? How well will my pension fund preform.
There are lots of other trust things at international, country, region, industry, and individual level.
However, once trust is lost, as it clearly must now be, how can anyone belief anything.
Next time there is a project which may result in the possibility of beneficial, perhaps a ideally placed distribution centre, that will not proceed in tandem, but in sequence. No trust, so will wait until the project is complete, up and running, before even starting the planning application. There will therefore be years between completion of a project and the commencement of beneficial growth, or return on investment.
That is not a good position to be in for a government. Will the government be perceived as week and shaky? Will it impact the pound, and the country’s credit rating? Money gets more expensive, therefore more cuts. More instability. Less trust.
Smoke and mirrors.
So the supposed saved money will all be used for other projects. Well, that is the money saved from the Manchester leg. Not from the Birmingham leg not Euston Station. So part of the money saved will be used for other projects. I can believe that for the moment. However, the Prime Minister did not say what was going to happen to the money already allocated or available to those alternative projects. Those projects must be reasonably advanced to be able to be completed so quickly.
So is it a case of diverting some of the saved HS2 money to release funding already lined up for the other projects, which have already changed, within one day. Or is it really new money?
Is the government being straight with the electorate?
My guess is that it all about the Treasury finding some cash down the back of the sofa so that there can be some tax cuts before the next election, which they hope will keep them in power.
I hope my guess is incorrect.
Perhaps the passenger numbers forecast has really plummeted since covid and the disruptive rail strikes. To such and extent that all the capacity requirements, including additional freight and maintenance time and capacity, can be achieved on the existing infrastructure, albeit somewhat slower. If this is the case, it should have been explained in the first instance to help maintain a degree of credibility.
If it is more people working from home, that is driving the reduced passenger numbers forecast, we need to think about the strategy. Do we want to become a low mobility nation? Look to the past. When were the surges in growth? Were they linked to the turnpikes, canals, railways, motorways, a mobile society, or a static one?
If it is considered a Value Management type issue, then it should be remembered that it is a reduction of cost whilst maintaining the same functionality. And form is included in the functionality equation. A supercar provides a similar transport function to a budget car, but without the form and style. Don’t go into a supercar showroom if you can’t afford it. Don’t order a supercar, and then cancel and change to a budget car halve way through manufacturing and think that you will have the same product, but at the same cost as the original budget car. That is not how it works.
However, whichever way it is it is hard to interpret these actions as being “Long-term decisions for a brighter future”. If only that were the case. It feels to me like “Short term decisions to stay in power.”
If so, very sad.
Thank you if you have stayed the course and read it all.
Replies to Comments
Hi Robert. I agree that there should be a fluid connection to HS1 as was envisaged by Andrew McNaughton. I also agree that High-Speed rail should have replaced domestic air travel in Britain apart from Northern Ireland. I have not seen information on the paths available North of Manchester to Glasgow, currently 3hr 20min according to timetable. I think the idea was to use the current infrastructure to extend the range of the High-Speed trains, even if not travelling at those speeds. However, current timetable for London Manchester is only a fraction over 2 hrs. So not even halve way to Glasgow.
Hi Alan, HS2 to HS1 direct connection to facilitate Manchester to Paris or Madrid or Brussels. To reduce short haul air travel, to improve connectivity, to make travel greener, to have an alternative to flying when aviation fuel becomes very expensive when the rest of the oil industry starts to implode on itself. Admittedly, there are lots of reasons why it would make more sense to build a dedicated DLR type service joining Euston, St Pancras, and King's Cross, to make them act as a single hub. Connectivity again.
Further Reading
LinkedIn Post -- My Personal Thoughts on HS2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2
Spain’s high-speed trains aren’t just efficient, they have transformed people’s lives (msn.com)
Heathrow Expansion London Airports Virgin Hyperloop One
Heathrow Expansion London Airports Virgin Hyperloop One
Instead of expansion at Heathrow, redefine the London Airports strategy as an integrated mesh service joined together with Virgin Hyperloop One. The travel time between Heathrow and Gatwick is less than 10 minutes. That is less time than terminal to gate in most instances. In the other direction add Luton and Stansted. Connections air side only to provide security and prevent massive overloading which would be detrimental to the speedy and easy joining of all of the airports runway capacity. Greener than another runway at heathrow, and then another, and probably cheaper. BAA may have to be resuscitated to make a single London strategy work. Consider adding Southend and Rochester Airports to make it a full loop, running in both directions. Perhaps not Rochester but somewhere in Kent.
Very little traction with this idea.
Incentive bonuses and KPIs
Incentive bonuses and KPIs
Not a reference to this particular article, but is it time that the industry thought again about incentive bonuses and KPIs in general. How much do they achieve the objective of better outcomes? How often do they work irrefutably?
Or do they have the unintended consequence of focussing on the Keys and overlooking the whole? How often is there so much at stake that it incentives reporting instead of production? What was wrong with individual pride, professionalism, and reputation being the driver for excellent performance? Have we again lost something that was good in the process of changing the industry, which did, and still does need improving. Again, not a reference to Mr Wolstenholme but the industry in general. #pride #excellent #industry #reputation #achieve #performance #reporting #betteroutcomes
Other reading
Epsom Local Plan
...
Politics
...
Introspection
Maths Homework
Not the normal grone about Maths. It was my favourite subject both at Secondary School and at Sixth Form. Indeed, three of my 5 'A' Levels are in Maths.
I liked our Sixth Form Maths teacher. He was very clever. He would often sit at his desk and get out the Times crossword, within ten minutes it was done. Generally he would set homework with five easy to middling questions and one stinker.
I would habitually start with the difficult question, and almost invariably resolve it successfully. Not, within the ten minutes that he would do the crossword, but frequently over twice the time it should have taken to do my homework. Focussing on the difficult does have its downside, particularly with respect to learning by rout and repetition, and therefore speed in exams. Exams are not just about your root knowledge, but also understanding and speed. Conversely, focussing on the difficult does help enhance complex problem solving skills.
Often heard question, what can Maths do for me?
Well, Maths helped me with creating complex financial models, risk management, cost predictions, contractor audits, specialist contract reviews, drafting reports for Major Projects External Experts, Company Re-engineering, creating strategies, and working on many other complex problems and opportunities. It helped me with logical and holistic thinking. In general, it helped a lot.
Shy
At school I was described as "shy and retiring, something of a loner". I was not very gregarious. Those of you that know me from work will not recognise the first, but perhaps the second. I still don't particularly like pubs and other large social gatherings. Some places I have worked, it was de rigueur to go to the pub after work, sometimes once a week, but other times more frequently. This allows you to join the inner sanctum, become one of the favoured few, thereby progressing. Sometimes there is also a cost, other than that of the drinks, including alcohol dependency, missing out on children growing up, strained relationships, divorce, as well as health issues, and some questionable work practices. Fortunately, I avoided most of the down side, by not attending. Frequently quoting the railway's zero tolerance, and random testing for alcohol, and other substances in the blood. As an aside, it still amazes me how many people in the railway industry post on social media what a wonderful time they are having at, such and such a place, which could lead you to surmise, that they may be imbibing in alcohol consumption in a timeframe which if the case, would result in them still having some alcohol in their blood at work. It is an interesting risk, as failure of a test is instant dismissal and banned from the industry for life. A severe consequence for going out and posting on line. They could of course not be drinking alcohol, just having a good time.
I of course missed out on the benefits as well. On the occasions I could get into the inner circle, I would falter, in part due to not being a social animal.
Going back to that shy disposition, that may be unrecognisable. Well, sometimes it was noticed. I was asked to apply to a Company for a particular roll, and was almost through the door, until the final hurdle, HR involvement. A mere formality apparently. Not so. A psychometric test reviled something I already knew, I was not gregarious. According to HR philosophy, if you were not gregarious you could not led people, and the role required people skills. I argued, that that difference, not to my mind a failing, could be managed. Not accepted by HR, and the offer was withdrawn.
I now have another reason not to go to the pub, not just like or dislike, but I have trouble hearing in situations with a high background noise. It is a recognised condition apparently. It does make conversation difficult and can lead to some confusion, if I guess what was said incorrectly, and therefore reply inappropriately. Even just a no, when a yes was what was expected. Then, through the whole misheard routine.
Easier to avoid, and enjoy smaller gatherings, in a more controlled environment.
The rest of the work time, with the non shy me, is just an act, or shall I say a compensation. An adjustment necessitated for progression in my chosen career.
Another element of my character that was not always beneficial is a tendency to be deferential. To seniors, to elders, to status. Now, to me that is just correct and respectful. However, it is not always considered an attribute in a work environment. Another layer of compensation, not alway correctly applied.
I recall a meeting at Crossrail. One of those that require some introductions and team building before getting on to the meat of the meeting. Round the table, name, role, brief introduction and a secret about yourself that nobody it the room was likely to know. So not state secrets, or indiscretions, but something perhaps a little personal, perhaps one time you fell off a horse, or hit a hole in one at golf.
Mine was that one day I had lunch with a Prime Minister and dinner with Royalty, and for emphasis, on the same day. I went on to explain that they were private meetings, not public events. Some people at the meeting were very conscious of who you know, not what you know, so my personal rating had just shot up. I did not let it linger too long, but savoured the moment. Lunch was a private meeting between my travelling partner and myself and the Prime Minister of Nepal and the Governor of the Bank of Nepal. We frequently dined with one of the Princes at the restaurant we generally attended. Other times it could be with Government officials. We knew the Chief of Police for Kathmandu, and the Chief of Police for Nepal because of the same restaurant. On this particular day we dined with the Prince at his residence.
Not British Prime Minister or Royalty, so my personal rating fell back to normal instantly, or did it bounce lower?
My basic predisposition to an introverted nature still persists. On cruises we would rather wait longer for dinner than share a table. Sharing involves social intercourse and niceties. It feels like work, which now that we are retired, is no longer required. However, in less formal and fixed situations, the same conversations, can be pleasant. In hotels, we can check in and then become anonymous and invisible, we can just come and go as we please with no unnecessary interaction.
However, on our last holiday, we stayed at a couple of guest houses and ate at a hotel restaurant, more than once. Conversations were struct up. Not forced or difficult. Pleasant in fact. Might try that again. Also, in the North of England and Scotland, people talk to you when you are out and about or walking. Very strange behaviour. Again, pleasant.
Perhaps retirement has mellowed me, in some ways.
Other words and phrases from my school report, as a word cloud.
Slow is a repeated theme, and they were not wrong. Slow in homework, examinations, and latterly IQ tests. All involve an element of time. Slow in work as well, but that I compensated for, with a combination of working smarter, and longer hours. So slow has its disadvantages, but is not always a bad thing if combined with quality and accuracy, right first time.
Purpose of a Contract Audit
Snow and the last train
Performance, good and bad
Other
...