November Meeting

Attendees: Dave Bleiman, Nora Klebow, Nancy McClure, Guy Messick, Mabe Ng, Bruce Madsen, Raimi Tan, Karen Thomas, Dan Tsui, Marla Ushijima, Glen Walson, Les Young.

Bruce hosted us at HOK this month (thanks, Bruce!). He had a great presentation on "BOB - BIM Outside the Box" and has graciously shared slides from his powerpoint presentation with us. You can download it here.

Bruce was delayed in starting his presentation due to enthusiastic discussion as people were arriving.

Bruce and Glen compared notes on the current state of Revit MEP. HOK now mandates that MEP work be performed in Revit. Interface Engineering has about 120 projects on Revit MEP. They agree that implementation has been difficult, though improving. The software is now adequate for the task, but workflow remains a major issue.

Data remains an ongoing challenge in BIM. Nancy notes that over the life of a project/building, it's difficult to maintain the integrity of the data. While designers don't want to be data-driven, Nancy points out that heavily-programmed buildings can benefit greatly by using data in a BIM design workflow. Nora notes that hospitals are in the forefront of this strategy because while the diagnostic and testing (D+T) components are different every time in terms of various metrics and adjacencies, patient rooms remain similar from project to project. Dave and Glen agree that hospitals benefit the most from evidence-based design because the owners are deeply involved in the design process, which is critical for its success.

Bruce began his presentation by identifying various aspects of implementing BIM and comparing the cost implications of each. While  BIM software is not inexpensive, that direct cost is a small fraction of the overall costs, as shown in his pie chart above. Marla and Karen questioned the slice for coordination since coordination has always been the architect's responsibility, but Bruce and Dave agree that the effort for BIM coordination is significantly greater than what's traditionally been done by architects because it's handled in the earlier phases of the project rather than getting pushed off to the contractor.

The largest single cost of BIM is for the content. The elements of this are building the firm-specific content for templates, building the firm library, acquiring content as needed, and managing all that content. Bruce's presentation focused on acquisition of content: building, finding, and/or buying it.

Built content can be started from a template, or by modifying existing content. Intuition would assume that using existing content would be easier, but as Glen pointed out, between time spent searching, modifying, and reverse-engineering to fix defects, it's often faster and easier to build from scratch.

Free content can be found from a variety of sources:

• BIM box: In addition to the default content provided, Autodesk offers 30 additional regional libraries.
• Within the firm: project archives, firm library, local office library
• Community exchanges: Balda Architect, Beck Group, CADforum, Revit City, Revit Database, Revit Forum, TurboSquid, Woodwork Institute
• Commericial consolidators: ATS, Autodesk SEEK, ARCAT, ARCxl, Bimobject, BIM STOP, Bimstore, CADdetails, Design content, National BIM Library, POLANTIS, PRODUCTSPEC, SteelSelect, Sweets Network, Reed Construction, RevitFAMILIESonline, SMARTBIM
• Manufacturers: Bruce has identified over 1100 manufacturers providing BIM content, with more coming on board every day. He feels that manufacturers are supporting BIM much better/faster than they had CAD.

Dave told us that manufacturers must pay to be listed with Autodesk SEEK, which limits the value of that resource. He also feels that using the National BIM Library is a route to guaranteed failure. Everyone agreed that while there's a lot of free content out there, there's a lot of time and effort required to find and adapt it—which is not free.

Buying content can be done from stores (Archvision, BD GROUP, Designconnected, ENGworks, FORMFONTS, Little Details Count, Revit Content, Revit Furniture, revitstore, RevitBay, revitcars, Symbol Machine, TurboSquid, Yellowbryk) or commissioned to be custom-built (andekan, LONDON INFOTECH, Pinnacle Infotech, REVIT FACTORY, Revit MEP Store, SumexDesign, Revit Content, TheModus).

Level of detail within a family is critical—it has to have enough information to be worthwhile, but too much detail blows up the size of the model and slows down the work. Bruce promoted three levels of detail within a family: simple cubes with schedules can serve for preliminary design; 2D symbols are usually sufficient for orthographic views; while more detailed 3D geometry can be reserved for where it's really necessary. Dan also suggests swapping out objects as necessary when rendering.

Bruce proposed that it's up to us to address the difficulties we face with content. Currently our efforts are redundant—all firms are addressing these topics independently. Instead we must ask for what we want, provide feedback, and contribute to an industry-wide solution. As a starting point, he solicited input from us on our greatest frustrations related to BIM content. Among those things most mentioned were time lost due to searching for content, content that's not appropriate for a model's needs, poorly-built content, and interruption to work flow.

Bruce identified the things we want:

• A massive library: all the content we need, including system objects, generic objects, and manufacturer-specific objects.
• Consistency: file names, type names, parameters, and parameter names. These standards should be established and maintained by industry groups, professional organizations, national and international standards groups, some kind of AECO Wiki, and all of us in the industry.
• High quality: adherence to standards and quality control, making sure all parameters flex properly.
• Findable: A searchable database or some other resource is necessary to make accessing the content from so many sources feasible. Search parameters need to include discipline, Revit category and library folder names, object name, author, LOD, standard followed, generic vs. specific, and a rating of the quality.
• Accessible: cloud-based, mobile, download-able, and insert-able
• Free or low-cost: all stakeholders should sponsor improvement: manufacturers to fund specific content; consolidators to fund generic content; stores to develop generic and non-component content; professional and trade organizations to develop standards for names and units; and content users to develop standards  for display and function, and to provide input and feedback. Large AEC firms could also be drawn upon to build content.

On the subject of standards, Dave noted that there are existing systems that can be drawn upon. ISO9000, the National CAD Standards, and Omniclass have already sorted some of these things out.

October Meeting

Attendees: Dave Bleiman, Mario Guttman, Bruce Madsen, Marla Ushijima

The group was really stoked after the presentation last month from Doug Childs on Lean Design, so we continued the topic in our informal discussion this month.

We all agreed that Lean faces resistance from the design community, which generally views it as a manufacturing-focused methodology. Marla proposes that the specialized terminology of Lean can be off-putting to those adverse to Lean Design, but that the specific words aren't critical to following Lean principles. Those principles are in line with generally-accepted best business practices—listen to what the client wants, don't waste time on activities that don't advance those goals, and learn from past experience—so if project managers jettison the terminology they can still advance Lean principles and tools on a project basis. Mario feels that the ritual derived from more overt implementation is important for organizational implementation.

We discussed dangers of ritual as well, and the difference between theoretical and actual benefits. We likened it to LEED certification, which can sometimes lead to an emphasis on getting points rather than effective sustainability. Dave questioned the appropriateness of the new Google headquarters' LEED Platinum rating, Mario questioned the slavish reliance on photometrics and Ecotect analysis vs. innovative approaches to getting effective lighting. Dave pointed out the irony of daylighting when shades are positioned to prevent glare but left in that position indefinitely by occupants who then turn on the lights.

How does Lean benefit an organization? Design professions are all about getting the work, doing the work, and getting paid for the work. Lean is mostly about doing the work. Its value in getting the work—marketing—is debatable. Bruce questions whether clients care whether or not you're using Lean; Mario questions whether a firm should try to sell Lean to a client or just let attitudes and performance speak for itself. He suggests that using Lean Design shows a serious commitment to QA, which could be of value in marketing. Added client value and potential marketing opportunities could be a selling point for management buy-in, which Bruce feels is critical for follow-through on whole-office implementation. Dave says that competitive advantage speaks volumes, and compares it to the implementation of BIM. As a demonstration, Mario suggested choosing the most disliked process in the office—such as doing dishes or processing reimbursables—and use a Lean process to improve it.

If internal opposition to Lean is expected, Marla suggests stealth implementation by a committed project manager on an individual project—to start small and demonstrate the value of Lean processes. Bruce and Dave agree that any change represents risk to an organization, so a pilot project must be used for evaluation before spreading it to the broader organization.

Dave is hopeful that Lean would reduce the need  for staff to stay late for a crush at deadline time, through more effective project planning. As an aside, Mario praised sheet lists as remaining of value in the BIM process to identify, plan, and track the work effort. We all agreed that knowing when to NOT do something is the right thing to do—such as when there's insufficient information to proceed effectively. Dave points out that the creative instinct sometimes fights against such efficiency.

Marla asked Dave about PopIcon for Architecture, which is apparently in its beta 3 version. Dave says they're facing a conundrum because they've made the library folder structure rigid to prevent mistakes, but the lack of flexibility creates a problem for architects. Dave is concerned that if they provide more flexibility, PopIcon would become a scapegoat for the resulting user errors. He asked for additional feedback from the beta users.

Mario brought up library management issues with BIM. Perkins+Will has a well-defined nomenclature for family file names, but the folder structure is more difficult to police. Mario thinks it's important for family creators to take ownership of their families and is promoting a structure in which folder names indicate the author, software version, and the unit type (imperial vs. metric). Bruce commented that the person at HOK who was responsible for creating their library of custom content was laid off as an expendable overhead cost. The result is a well-crafted collection of families being overtaken by content created ad-hoc by various designers. Bruce is concerned that the legacy standards—which are really good—will degrade over time.

We discussed the idea of using Omniclass vs. folder structure to classify families and tie them into e-spec. Mario notes that currently specs are typically based on prototypes; Omniclass tends to be either too obvious or too obscure and the middle ground is too small for value. Marla suggested polling our Linked In group to see who's using e-specs.

Bruce asked whether Lean is anathema to design? Architects are typically not interested in "process." Marla points out that certain tasks in the design professions are amenable to process improvement, others not so much. Bruce mentioned "optioneering," a methodology to systematically explore a large number of design options using parametric design tools. Mario pointed out that staffing realities can mess with a balanced work flow. Bruce wonders if Lean can shorten the timeline of a project; Mario wonders whether it can improve accuracy.

Bruce asked us how many manufacturers we think are providing Revit-specific content. Mario guessed twenty are making good content, plus about 500 others. Bruce said there are over a thousand.

Mario says he's developed a batch processor for in-house use at Perkins+Will to create 3D and plan previews, drawn from defined views within the BIM file. Marla asked whether parameters are included in the preview information; Mario doesn't see that as a high priority, and thinks a notes field would be of more value. He wonders whether he could mine the parameters in a family to populate a notes field.

There are several industry events coming up: Arcadia and Greenbuild will both be held in San Francisco, as will AIA|CC's Now • Next • Future conference. Autodesk will be in Las Vegas; both HOK and P+W will be sending speakers only.

Dave proposes a future meeting focusing on the Lean A3 document; he thinks it's really valuable. Marla would like to further examine the ties between Lean, BIM, and IPD. Bruce has a great interest in all the things required for successful BIM use that aren't part of the software package. He believes those things are a hundred times as expensive as the software itself. He has offered to host next month's meeting at HOK on the subject of BOB—BIM Outside the Box.

July Meeting

Attendees: Dave Bleiman, Todd Henderson, Bruce Madsen, James McKenzie, Dan Tsui, Marla Ushijima

We started off with a discussion of Lean Design and it's relationship to BIM. Currently there are cases of remodeling due to the use of multiple software and difficulties with interoperability. Structural engineers prefer Tekla, architects typically use Revit, but there are problems with the IFC interface between them, such as beams that get flipped when they're translated into Revit. In response, Todd notes that Boulder Associates has learned how to model in Tekla, but this is prohibitive for most architects. Dave made a presentation at Autodesk University on the two programs, the interface between them, and the shortcomings of Revit for fabrication. Tekla has provided a "crazy amount" of support on the issue, but not so much from Autodesk. Fabricators use Tekla because it identifies every piece of rebar on a project - necessary for shop-fabrication - but that doesn't work in Revit. That problem was resolved in Revit 2013, but by that point fabricators had already committed to Tekla. James postulated that issues might arise from the fact that Autodesk hasn't developed a product in-house since AutoCAD 20+ years ago, with the exception of Inventor. They've bought all their signature software in recent years.

Next up was the topic of construction accuracy. James referenced GPS control of earth-moving equipment, facilitated by topo models with all underground utilities located. Todd noted that at Kaiser Oakland Hospital, McCarthy Construction developed an in-house scanning team that creates topo maps of floor slabs to measure their levelness to 1/10 of an inch, and to check locations of rebar and stub-ups. They overlay the laser scan onto the Revit model for QA/QC. Can construction methods really meet the new expectations for construction tolerances? Swinerton uses Get the Point software with Total Station to identify hole locations in slabs, and also uses laser scanning for QA/QC. James notes that they receive no additional compensation, and they're not taking advantage of it for marketing purposes.

Dave brought up the issue of cloud computing. At the recent Revit Technology Conference there was a demonstration of BIM9, which provides private BIM clouds with a separate server behind a firewall that firms locate in their own server room. It provides BIM authoring software via remote desktop access for either local or remote use by any device connected to the internet. Cheap computers can be used for modeling as long as they have a good graphics card. Even ipads can be a viable modeling tool if they've got a mouse. Todd mentioned experience with Log Me In for remote access, which was slow and doesn't give server access to consultant engineers in China. Bruce noted that HOK is using Citrix successfully for cloud computing.

For cloud storage, James mentioned Pogo, which is a cheap device that acts as a private server. It's not secure but it is easily deployed. Todd said that security concerns led Sutter Health to negotiate a special contract for Buzzsaw that guarantees that none of their data would be stored outside the country. We questioned the need for this, as info gets out anyway via bid documents. Todd likes Buzzsaw, Dave notes that Dropbox is popular but not as robust.

There are several solutions that marry team-sharing of information and project management. Constructware is designed to work with Buzzsaw. Horizontal Glue has been bought by AutoDesk; it facilitates the RFI process and works with CMIC for job-cost accounting, similar to Deltek but more robust. Dan's experience with Horizontal Glue is that it's navigation is slow, with cloud-based streaming. James noted the need for untethered access to information when an internet connection is unavailable. Vela Systems caches information for off-line access. Dan and Bruce are both familiar with 360 Glue, which is another Autodesk product similar to Horizontal Glue. They thought it worked well. Dan used it at Modulus Consulting for cloud rendering, which was fast, impressive, and freed up their in-house servers. His client loved it, asking for more and more renderings - include it in the contract as an add service so both the client and you benefit.

May SFDD Meeting

Attendees: David Bleiman, Victor Chu, Naveen Govind, Mario Guttman, John LeBlanc, Eric Peabody, Karen Thomas, Mark Tiscornia, Lillian Trac, Marla Ushijima

Eric Peabody presented a fantastic case study of three nearly identical projects delivered by three different processes, as the nearest thing possible to a real-world controlled experiment in BIM use. The Design Partnership (TDP) designed remodels of three operating rooms at Stanford's Cath Labs used for procedures delivered through catheterization methods. All three labs are in the same building, on the same floor.

Lab #7 was a Design Bid Build project executed in 2006 with a traditional CAD-only workflow. It started with existing 2D CAD drawings, which were verified in the field. TDP then created new 2D CAD documents for the remodeling work.

Lab #9 was a Design Assist project executed in 2009 using an "industry standard" BIM workflow which included modeling down to 2", with select smaller elements modeled as necessary. It started with a 3D scan used to create a model of the existing conditions, and then a design BIM for the remodeling work. Eric showed a very impressive image from the point cloud which many of us initially mistook for a photograph. It was black and white, but captured light reflectance of the materials. He mentioned that color scanning is also now available.

Lab #10 was also Design Assist, executed in 2010, also using 3D scanning to capture existing conditions and create an existing BIM but modeling everything for the design BIM, including studs and junction boxes.

Eric developed an extensive analysis of the three projects on the basis of schedule, change orders, and costs - design, construction, and margin (based on lost revenue from the operating rooms due to the construction). He adjusted all costs to 2010 dollars based on inflation of the economy at large (not strictly inflation of the construction economy). He deducted all medical equipment costs to level the playing field.

The design fee proposal to use BIM for Lab #9 was significantly higher than for #7 CAD - knocking the client out of their seat - but TDP lobbied successfully for it. Eric admitted that they benefited from the BIM as well, as it's in the architect's best interest to create the most coordinated set possible; but the subsequent cost savings to the client caused them to demand BIM for Lab #10. The design fees for #10 were back to the CAD level despite the increased BIM effort, because the contractor took on the modeling. That turned out to be costlier to the client due to union wages paid by the contractor. (Hmmm, perhaps architects should form a union?)

The client was also concerned about the $30,000 cost per room for the 3D scanning, but Mario points out that it is probably more than balanced by the revenue gained in getting the operating rooms back into action quicker. Some contractors such as DPR use extreme scanning procedures, repeatedly scanning as the building rises to confirm accuracy. Dave notes that vertical coordination of floor penetrations is critical for Total Station Control methodologies. He also notes that DPR's emphasis on precision offers marketing opportunities.

Post-construction, Lab #7 drawings had to be revised to match as-built conditions. Lab #9 BIM was close enough that the client didn't require revisions. Lab #10 BIM was virtually identical to the as-built conditions.

TDP's conclusion after these three projects is that BIM definitely beats CAD, the 2" standard of Lab #9 is a little coarse, but the "model everything" approach of Lab #10 yields diminishing returns. TDP determined the sweet spot as modeling to 1-1/2", which is sufficient to capture all the necessary medical gas lines and struts.

Mark feels that contractors are getting to the point that they want no change orders to the virtual model. He proposes that if designers model the same way as contractors, there's more likelihood that the design model doesn't need to be thrown away. If the contractor can start with the design model then he should be able to reduce his fees.

Dave notes that everything is Design Assist now, there's very little Design-Bid-Build. In Europe structural designers do the shop drawings and provide a book of quantities. This process is facilitated by the Parts tool introduced in Revit 2012.

On the issue of code review and BIM submittal for permits, Singapore was mentioned but Mario and Dave repeated their belief that it remains largely apocryphal. As long as paper drawings remain necessary for permitting, especially for OSHPD, they must remain the basis of contract documents. This is, of course, at odds with contractors who derive much greater value out of the BIM. As models increasingly become the professional standard of care, it becomes more difficult legally to rely on disclaimers regarding their accuracy. A more appropriate approach to accuracy issues might be to establish clearly-defined Levels of Development. Designers are also wise to hyper-link the specs to elements in the model to keep critical information on the contractor's radar. This also adds potential value to the model post-construction for use by facility managers and building management systems.

Dave suggests that to stay in the game designers must create greater value for ourselves. We need to be prepared to rely on the BIM as contract documents. An in-house QA process for models becomes critical.

Eric notes that in Europe a new category of professional is emerging who's responsible for BIM modeling and analysis (energy, lifecycle costs, etc.).

In the U.S., we noted the trend toward acquisitions. As firms such as AECOM are merging diverse professionals of varying core competencies, authoring and ownership of a BIM - plus the associated liability issues - become moot as it's increasingly all done in-house. Pankow and Herrero have also purchased some of their own sub-contractors. We questioned whether mid-size firms are dying out as partnering becomes necessary for success or even survival.