The BIMe Initiative has just launched! As of today, BIM ThinkSpace, BIM Framework blog and BIM Framework YouTube Channel are part of the BIMe Initiative. As of today, all publications, presentations, and workshops derived from the BIM Framework will follow the initiative’s General Principles and use its Knowledge Structures. As of today, the online BIM Dictionary – the first project of the initiative – supports right-to-left script and 7 languages out of 20 planned in 2017. As of today, all well-informed practitioners, domain researchers, and forward-looking organisations are invited to join the BIMe Initiative Network and contribute to improving the industry’s digital performance. So what is the BIMe Initiative?
The BIMe Initiative is based on the BIM Excellence [1] approach and represents a community-based effort to improve the performance of the construction industry through high-impact research and open knowledge sharing.
In essence, the BIMe Initiative complements and – where difficult to complement – provides an alternative to top-down, authority-led, and prescriptive BIM diffusion policies. Supported by clear knowledge structures, a network of international subject matter experts, and an expanding modular language, the BIMe Initiative delivers an innovative, coherent and a timely response to the opportunities and challenges brought-forward by BIM adoption.
The BIMe Initiative delivers solutions of practical benefit to facility owners, designers, builders and operators. These solutions include:
There are many government-funded committees, commercially-driven corporations and heroic individuals/groups working towards improving the Construction Industry’s BIM adoption and its overall digital performance. While many of these varied efforts provide great strategies, protocols and digital solutions, they are mostly disconnected from each other, restricted because of copyright clauses, and specific to the markets they originate from.
Also, there are only a few truly-international organisations operating in this space but they tend to mostly focus on developing schemas and prescriptive standards for industry to comply with.
The BIMe Initiative takes a different yet complementary approach to these international efforts by adopting four General Principles:
(A) Commitment to Openness
All BIMe Initiative guides and tools will be released through open channels under a Creative Commons license allowing free use by individuals and organisations on their own projects (service providers require a license).
(B) Grown around a Knowledge Structure
The BIMe Initiative is built upon a clear structure for harvesting and organising knowledge. This structure allows the modular development of highly-interconnected guides and tools.
(C) Peer-sourced and Peer-tested
The BIMe Initiative connects international subject matter experts – from academia and industry – through a high-intensity R&D network. Through this network, the best solutions are identified, incubated, tested and released.
(D) Open Innovation across boundaries
The BIMe Initiative provides a knowledge tool-kit for anyone to use, customise, translate and continuously improve. Through Open Innovation, new solutions are collaboratively developed and shared across disciplines, industries and markets.
These General Principles are available in many languages and are further presented as an online Excellence Manifesto for all BIMe Initiative supporters to sign.
BIMe Initiative solution are delivered through different types of projects, each aiming to deliver a software application or a published guide of direct practical benefit to individuals, organisations and project teams. BIMe Initiative Projects also aim to deliver conceptual models and learning resources that can be used by researchers, educators and policy makers to conduct investigations, educate industry stakeholders and develop research-based policies.
The BIM Dictionary is an example of such an online learning resource developed through a top-level [2] project. Other examples of BIMe Initiative Projects include the Macro BIM Policy Guide project, the International BIM Competency Benchmarking project, and Integrated Information Platform project (refer to the online Projects List).
Fig.1. BIMe Initiative Product Development Diagram (Full-size Image)
For more information, please refer to 103in BIMe Initiative Projects.
To deliver these projects, the BIMe Initiative relies on a network of individuals - BIMe Members and BIMe Volunteers – who are willing to:
All subject matter experts can support the BIMe Initiative through sharing its deliverables, participate as BIMe Volunteers, or formally apply to become Active or Core Members.
For more information, please refer to 104in BIMe Initiative Network.
To actively participate in the BIMe Initiative, it is important to adopt the BIMe Initiative Knowledge Structures. This adoption is important to ensure consistency of efforts and continuity of effort towards generating practical solutions and a coherent body of knowledge. These structures are represented as five complementary Knowledge Sets:
Fig.2. BIMe Initiative Knowledge Sets Model (Full-size Image)
For more information, please refer to 102in BIMe Initiative Knowledge Structures.
BIMe Initiative projects generate many components of potential use by practitioners and academics. These components – e.g. frameworks, templates and lists – are shared, first, as peer-reviewed studies on BIMexcellence.org and, second, through high-calibre peer-reviewed journals and conference papers.
This early sharing is intended to benefit the wider community and to test/improve the components through application in different markets.
Fig.3. 201in Competency Table (screen capture)
For sample publications, please refer to BIMexellence.org/publications/.
The BIMe Initiative aims to deliver open solutions that can be freely used by practitioners and academics. Developing these solutions relies mostly on the knowledge contributions of BIMe Initiative Members and Volunteers. It also relies on the financial and in-kind support provided by ChangeAgents AEC which covers its basic operating costs to keep it independent and ad-free. However, to expand the activities of the BIMe Initiative and undertake more ambitious knowledge-sharing projects (e.g. benchmarking the competency across whole markets), it is important to attract the financial and in-kind support of corporate and institutional sponsors.
In return for their contributions, sponsors receive public-recognition, and early-access to data, tools and project discussions.
For more information, please refer to 901in BIMe Initiative Sponsorship.
The BIMe Initiative is a community-based effort committed to improving the digital performance of the Construction Industry through high-quality research, practical-tool development, and open knowledge-sharing. This commitment is encoded in the General Principles and the Excellence Manifesto that you’re invited to sign today.
The BIMe Initiative is driven by informed contributors from across the world, each with their own specialty and world-improving mindset. We, the initial group of Core Members, invite you (yes, you) to join us as an active volunteer, signed-up member or recognised sponsor!
We will soon publish additional resources, so make sure you join the discussion on Twitter, LinkedIn or ResearchGate. You can also sign-up to receive the occasional BIMe Initiative Newsletter [3].
The BIMe Initiative community is active, please join us!
[1] BIM Excellence (BIMe) is a unique research-based approach to digital innovation in the construction industry. It offers an integrated methodology and a modular language for performance assessment, information management, learning and process optimisation. BIM Excellence is originally based on Dr. Bilal Succar's personal research starting in 2007 and mostly published as part of his PhD in 2013. Since then, the research has expanded significantly and now invites others to build upon it to develop their own tools and templates.
[2] Top-level projects deliver end-products (guides or software tools) and may include a number of micro projects to deliver interim components (e.g. metrics and workflows) used within end-products.
[3] Please note to BIM ThinkSpace and the BIM Framework subscribers are automatically added to newsletter distribution list.
In this guest post, Mehmet Yalcinkaya (PhD Candidate) and Vishal Singh (Assistant Professor - both at Aalto University, Finland) introduce their innovative approach to project information visualisation. Their background research is solid and the tool they've developed is very promising:
It is astounding that not many of us realise that we spend nearly one year of our life looking for misplaced objects. Yes, one year lost in looking for misplaced objects! No wonder, the same problem plagues us in our professional lives as well. On average, AEC-FM professionals and technicians spend 46% of their time looking for the information they need (Juhla and Suvanto 2015). That is, when we are seeking some input to base our actions on, nearly half of the time we can’t find the “right information”. Of course, this is also true of data and digitised information. So we know there’s a problem in locating information, but is there a solution to this?
In this short post, we will summarise our research covering key pain points - information management challenges that our industry is suffering from. We will also introduce a few basic principles that we’ve adopted, and a digital solution that we’ve developed, to address these pain points.
The effective access, delivery and management of digital facility information has remained a major challenge over the past few decades. Despite the increasing digitalisation of the AEC-FM sector, and the proliferation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Internet of Things (IoT) solutions, challenges related to information management continue to expand and grow. Project-related information is vast, diverse, fragmented, and widely distributed across different sources, systems and actors. More often than not, we – the information managers - assume that those who need specific project information would be able to easily search diverse information sources and make sense of what they find. We also assume that everyone who needs information knows where information they seek is stored, and how to seamlessly navigate between vastly different data sources and data structures. We also assume that, in order to support data integration, we only need to create standards, enforce their adoption top-down, and then everyone will magically understand what to do and when to do it! In all these assumptions, we are actually overly reliant on the information seeker’s ability to find information, especially if we’ve not clarified where information is stored and how information retrieval need to be handled. So when these poor information seekers can’t find the information they need, many of us tend to either blame the information standards, the individual seeker, or the software systems used. Many of us may attempt to remedy this by creating new information standards or developing new information management tools. In doing so, we tend to forget that, without addressing the root causes, the problem is bound to persist and we’ll find ourselves facing the same challenge, over and over again.
The most important way to address the aforementioned challenge is to question the many underlying assumptions we’ve discussed above. In this post, we propose two key approaches: first, we need to focus on the information seekers, understand their decision making processes, and the cognitive aspect dictating how information is being parsed. Second, we need to acknowledge that current information standards and information structures have merit and do not need to be replaced or replicated. So rather than trying to create new standards, we need to focus on making them easier to understand and follow by non-experts.
To test our aforementioned approach, we’ve built a data aggregation and visual search platform - called VisuaLynk – using a network/graph-based data infrastructure. In building this platform, we avoided capturing information entities in a siloed manner as most current IT systems do. That is, most project information systems try to capture the whole lifecycle project information in files, folders and digital repositories. Such an approach cannot capture the relations between the information entities, cannot clarify the hidden interactions within the network, and thus these relations and interactions would remain misunderstood and underutilized.
To counter this, instead of capturing data in a static and siloed system, we’ve adopted a dynamic, network-based configuration to display relations between information entities (Figure 1).
Figure 1. A network/graph based data infrastructure to solve the problem of data-silos
To further improve the user’s experience, we introduced an interactive graph-based visualization and a visual search - a knowledge map of the linked facility data. This visual approach allows information seekers to more easily find the information they need and understand the relation between information entities (Figure 2). Also, the knowledge map simplifies the data structure that can correspond – in theory – to any information standard. For example, we’ve developed VisualCOBie, a graph visualization of the COBie standard (Construction Operations Building information Exchange – refer to Yalcinkaya & Singh 2016a) which makes COBie data structure visual and thus easier to understand by the non-expert user. Our preliminary research trials attracted much the positive feedback from industry partners in Finland. The key finding is that interactive graph visualizations of standardised data structures is a good way to clarify information standards to non-experts, and to increase their acceptance and adoption rates. Based on these positive results, it may be worth investigating to take trial this on more complex data structures and possibly develop a VisualIFC module or similar.
Figure 2. Implementation of the data aggregation and visual search platform
There is a limit to the amount of information that people can process. Efficient documentation and effective representation of data is critical to improve communication and collaboration between people. This has always been the best approach (to date) to deliver structured project information through CAD/BIM files, PDF documents, spreadsheets, emails, etc. However, despite the importance of documentation to exchange project/facility information, the knowledge and experience of individuals cannot be stored as documents. Even basic knowledge similar where information is stored, how to read different data formats, and how to build connections/links between stored data and documented information across different sources, remain stubbornly tacit (hidden) within the mind of the individual information seeker.
To address this, we need to develop a new kind of data aggregation platform which – to a degree – can act as a Transactive Memory System (Wegner 1995). That is, if the system can represent how information is connected, information seekers – a project team for example – can more easily locate the information they need, when they need it.
So, instead of categorizing project information into disconnected silos (files and folders), we’ve managed to create a visual layer that (a) uncovers existing data structures, and (b) clarifies many of the relations between these structures across the project’s whole lifecycle. The relations uncovered include (c) those between a single individual (project actor) with other individuals, and (d) those between individuals and information entities. By making these relations explicit, we have come closer to building a ‘transactive memory system’ that – not only represents the original hierarchical relations between information entities but also – shows many alternative paths between entities (Yalcinkaya & Singh, 2016b).
To achieve such a visual memory system, we developed a knowledge graph/network using a linked data approach. The integration between different data sources and the aggregation platform is established via API (application programming interface) connections. In addition, the integration of BIM/IFC files is established via the semantic web technology by conversion of IFC file to resource description framework (RDF) format (Hoang & Seppo 2015). Therefore in our approach, instead of trying to collect all data in a single repository, we’ve opted to aggregate and semantically link existing data from across various sources. Such an approach has also been adopted by BuildingSmart and the Linked Building Data Community Group, which are currently conducting much research activity around BIM and Web of Data.
Since we are focusing on the individual user, we go a step beyond the back-end linked data capability to provide a user-friendly and interactive interface that also explicitly shows the relationships between the linked data. The User Interface presents the data structure, data connections and spatial organization in a visually-appealing, space-saving node-link diagram.
Such visualization facilitates navigation between information entities using pre-attentive figures (symbols) assigned to information entities (nodes) which are directly related (links) to individuals and/or other information entities (Figure 3).
The node-link visualization is also able to connect bi-directionally with interactive 2D floor plans and 3D BIM models thus allowing information seekers to interrogate specific spaces, equipment and components. This ability to concurrently navigate data structures using varied representations (2D, 3D, tree-structure, node-link diagram) enhances user experience.
Figure 3. Representation of a graph-based data model with node-link diagram
In summary, our research has addressed the ‘information management’ challenge in two ways: focusing on the individual information seeker, and enhancing the usability of data aggregated from different sources. This has been accomplished by applying the following key principles:
This post reflects our early research findings with more empirical evidence currently being collected through pilot projects. However, these findings are very promising as they suggest that visual communication, explicit representation of relations between information entities, and server-side linked-data approach can markedly (a) improve user experience, and (b) increase adoption of information systems!
Hoang, Nam Vu, and Seppo Törmä. "Implementation and Experiments with an IFC-to-Linked Data Converter." http://itc.scix.net/data/works/att/w78-2015-paper-029.pdf
Tuuli Jylhä , Maila Elina Suvanto , (2015) "Impacts of poor quality of information in the facility management field", Facilities, Vol. 33 Iss: 5/6, pp.302 - 319
Wegner, Daniel M. "A computer network model of human transactive memory." Social cognition 13.3 (1995): 319.
Yalcinkaya M. & Singh V., (2016a). Evaluating the Usability Aspects of Construction Operation Building Information Exchange (COBie) Standard. CIB World Building Congress, At Tampere, Finland https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303811016_Evaluating_the_Usability_Aspects_of_Construction_Operation_Building_Information_Exchange_COBie_Standard
Yalcinkaya M. & Singh V., (2016b). A Visual Transactive Memory System Approach Towards Project Information Management, [Manuscript in review]
This study is a part of an ongoing research at Aalto BIM Collaboration led by Dr. Vishal Singh (@SinghV_Aalto), Assistant Professor at the Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Finland. To read peer-reviewed paper related to this post, please see the references above. Additional and upcoming articles related to this blog can be found through the author’s public research profiles.
This is currently an ongoing research and development project, requiring improvements and revision of both on theoretical and practical aspects. For any inaccuracies, inquiry for further discussions and/or comments/suggestions, please contact the researcher directly.
We would like to thank Dr. Bilal Succar for this opportunity to publish this research through BIM ThinkSpace. We would also like to thank Senior Researcher Seppo Törma and PhD Candidate Nam Vu Hoang for their collaboration and intensive support to this research.
Mehmet YalcinkayaPhD Candidate at Aalto University, Finland Mehmet is a PhD Candidate and Researcher at Aalto BIM Collaboration where he is currently investigating a number of topics including: Facility Management (FM) practices, computational and usability aspects of BIM-based FM solutions, and how standardization processes affect industrial and technological knowhow. His PhD study resulted in the development of a data aggregation and visual search platform called VisuaLynk. Mehmet has previously worked on the DRUMBEAT research project and is currently the project manager for the DigiBuild research project. He has industrial experience in large-scale residential and infrastructure construction projects in both Turkey and the USA. Mehmet (Mehmet.Yalcinkaya@aalto.fi) can also be contacted via Linkedin, Twitter, ResearchGate, and Githu |
|
Vishal SinghAssistant Professor at Aalto University, Finland Vishal Singh is the professor of Computer Integrated Construction (Building Information Modeling) at the Department of Civil Engineering, Aalto University, Finland. He leads the BIM research program and works closely with both industry and national/international research partners. Vishal’s research focuses on the interaction of products, processes and people - aiming to understand the decision making processes, and developing tools and methods to support this decision making. Vishal’s research combines his expertise in the areas of design thinking and computational thinking with a focus on BIM, multidisciplinary collaboration, and digitally-enabled innovation across the AEC-FM industry. Vishal (Vishal.Singh@aalto.fi) can also be contacted via Linkedin, Twitter and ResearchGate |
In this guest post, Marzia Bolpagni (PhD Candidate, Politecnico di Milano, Italy) provides a comprehensive review of the 'LOD' term and its many nuances from across the world. I’m sure you’ll find her insights, comparative tables and detailed charts very informative:
All practitioner who use Building Information Modelling tools and workflows in their daily practice must have already faced the ‘information exchange dilemma’. That is, to effectively deliver a project, it is first essential to define what information is needed, from whom, and at what level of detail. To meet this challenge, several international specifications have been developed to address the definition of modelled objects and information embedded within them - these include: Model Progression Specification (MPS), Model Development Specification (MDP), Level of Development, and Level of Detail. Usually, these specifications are included within a BIM Execution Plan (BEP) or a similar document. However, much confusion still surrounds these concepts due to the large number of acronyms and definitions across countries and sometimes within the same market. Thus, this post will focus on clarifying the principles, surveying historical data, differentiating between different specifications, and reflecting upon a possible future scenario.
In 2004, Vico Software (now part of Trimble) introduced the Model Progression Specification (MPS) concept to facilitate the management of information within BIModels. The ‘LOD' acronym was thus used for the first time to indicate ‘Level of Detail’ and to establish the progressive reliability of information over a period of time. In 2008, a similar concept was adopted by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), California Council’s Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Task Force, and later by the AIA National Documents Committee. The AIA introduced five ‘Levels of Development’ (LOD100-LOD500) in the E202™–2008. Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit, which was updated in 2013. Also in 2013, the BIMForum published the Level of Development Specification based on the AIA protocols. These documents then became the point of reference of several BIM Guidelines and documents in a number of countries – including Australia, Canada, Singapore, China, Taiwan, Germany and France. Other countries developed their own variant specification. For example, in New Zealand, the LOD specification follows the AIA (2013) but defines ‘Level of Development’ (LOD) as a sum of four different aspects: ‘Level of detail’ (LOd), ‘Level of accuracy’ (LOa), ‘Level of information’ (LOi) and ‘Level of coordination’ (LOc).
In 2007, Denmark developed a different classification system based on seven ‘Information Levels’ (0-6) covering geometric and non-geometric data within virtual building elements that different parties rely upon. This concept was then incorporated into the Australian CRC National BIM Guidelines document (2009) and the ‘Nederlandse BIM informatieniveaus’ (2014), although the US Levels of Development (LOD100-LOD500) were the dominant system used in both countries.
Following that, the Hong Kong BIM Project Specification (2011) incorporated several tables for defining the minimum ‘Level of Detail’ required with models but without providing a classification.
Figure 1: The History of ‘LOD’ (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)
In 2009 the AEC(UK) released a BIM Protocol introducing a Model Development Methodology incorporating the Level of Detail/Grade within a classification dedicated purely to geometric aspects (G0-G3). In 2012, the same concept was adopted in Canada by AEC(CAN). However, in 2014, the second version of the BIM Protocol now only refers to the BIMForum LOD Specification released in 2013. In the UK, PAS1192-2, was then published in 2013 and introduced the ‘Level of Definition’, a new classification system with seven levels (1-7) representing both a ‘Level of Model Detail’ (LOD) (for graphic content) and ‘Level of Model Information’ (LOI) (for non-graphic content). This concept was later incorporated, in 2015, into both the NBS BIM Toolkit and the AEC(UK) BIM Technology Protocol, while the CIC BIM Protocol (2013) continues to refer only to Levels of Detail. The UK approach has influenced the last version of the BIMForum LOD Specification (2015) which for the first time includes both Element Geometry and Associated Attribute Information. A new version will be available by July 2016 for public comments.
Another classification deals with the Level of Accuracy (LOA) to represent and document existing conditions. The USIBD guideline (2016) uses different levels (LOA10-LOA50) and incorporates the validation process.
Finally, CityGML has developed five Levels of Detail (LOD0-LOD4) to define geometric details and semantic precision to link BIM with Geographic Information System (GIS) data.
Figure 2: ‘LoX’ relations and evolution (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)
The above variations of the same concept have – understandably – caused a large degree of confusion. Below are a few examples:
The below two tables summarize the many different classification systems, within the main BIM documents, intended to specify the level of detail, development or information embedded within Model Components.
Table 1: Comparison of the intended coverage of LoX systems (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)
Several classifications (included in Table 2) are already established. However, it is important to underline that – while many share the same name/acronym – they do not necessarily carry the same connotations. For this reason, there is not a perfect coincidence between levels of different classifications and some of them are not well defined as recently discussed by fellow researcher Brian Renehan. In addition, US classifications tend to mainly cover the design and construction phases and focus to a lesser degree on the operation, management and maintenance phase.
Table 2: Comparison of classification systems within different LoX systems (Updated July 22, 2016 - Full-size Image)
To date, the many and increasing LoX concepts have been associated with the incremental progression of information definition within models. However, there are now voices who question whether these types of classification systems accurately represent reality. For example, in order to represent the iterative workflows within the design phase, Drobnik and Riegas (2015) suggest the introduction of Level of Development zero (LOD 0) as well as a negative one (LOD -100).
Also, there has been very little attention given to the link between LoX systems and Model uses as applicable in practice (even if some definitions mention ‘Authorized Uses’). In my opinion, for a LoX system to be applied more intuitively, it needs to be linked (i.e. change according to) targeted Model Uses at each project stage/phase.
An important part of the BIM Processes that is yet to attract ample attention is Verification and Validation. The manual, automatic and semi-automatic compliance checking of information requirements within BIModels is still to be adequately resolved. Current approaches to Model Validation focus on static entities rather than on performing dynamic validation. It is therefore important that future research takes into account - not only the discrete Level of Detail (dLOD) but – the continuous LOD (cLOD), the continuous Level of Information (cLOI), and link both to specific Model Uses as applicable at each project phase/stage.
Another important aspect to address is how to apply LoX systems to existing buildings, as most classifications tend to focus on new construction.
Based on the above, and in collaboration with a number of colleagues, I will be investing additional efforts in trying to resolve some of the issues identified above. I therefore invite all BIM researchers and practitioners to do the same.
The study is part of an ongoing research effort conduced in collaboration with Prof Angelo Luigi Camillo Ciribini (@Ciribini) of University of Brescia (Italy). To review the peer-reviewed paper upon which this post is based, please download ‘The Information Modeling and the Progression of Data-Driven Projects’, as presented at the CIB World Building Congress, Tampere Finland on June 3, 2016.
The topic is in constant flux: new definitions and approaches are being developed and existing definitions are constantly revised. If you discover any inaccuracies or would like to highlight missing information, please add a comment below or contact the author directly.
I would like to thank Bilal Succar for this opportunity to publish through BIM ThinkSpace. I am thankful to Brian Renehan for his comments on earlier works and for exchanging thoughts on different Model Progression Specifications. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by graphic designer Fabiola Pizzuto. Prof. Angelo Ciribini, Amarnath Chegu Badrinath, Prof. Shang-Hsien Hsieh and Zhe Liu. Finally, special thanks to my grandfather for his constant support.
Marzia Bolpagni Architectural Engineer | PhD Candidate at Politecnico di Milano, Italy Marzia Bolpagni is a PhD Candidate at Politecnico di Milano (Italy) where she is investigating ways to manage and control public works through innovative digital approaches. She has worked as BIM researcher at VTT (Finland), ITC-CNR (Italy) and Massachusetts Port Authority (US). She also worked with designers, contractors, public authorities and the Italian Standard Body (UNI) on implementing BIM-based processes. She has presented her work at both national and international fora. After serving as a member of the WBC16 International Scientific Programme Committee for the CIB World Building Congress 2016 and the BIM Roundtable at AIA BSA Foundation, she is currently a member of the VDC & MEP Committee Roundtable at Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts (AGC MA). Marzia can be contacted through LinkedIn, Twitter, ResearchGate, and Academia |
Raramente pasa una o dos semanas sin que oigamos hablar de una nueva iniciativa BIM en un país u otro. Está claro que el ritmo de adopción de BIM se ha acelerado considerablemente en los dos últimos años y la nueva oleada de implementación tiene por objetivo la Europa continental. Se detectan continuos esfuerzos en Alemania, Francia y España y entre los profesionales y asociaciones industriales empiezan a sonar los mismos gritos de guerra que oíamos anteriormente en US, UK, Australia, Singapur, Malasia, y más recientemente en Corea y Brasil.
This episode is also available in the following Languages:
The Spanish version continues below:
Ya que los responsables de formular políticas [i] desean copiar a otros responsables o bien desarrollan sus propias guías BIM, protocolos y mandatos, creemos que puede ser beneficioso compartir la investigación de visión global que estamos llevando a cabo, con todos aquellos que estén interesados. En base a la colaboración vigente con el Dr Mohamad Kassem (Teesside University, UK), hemos investigado y estamos desarrollando una serie de Modelos de Macro Adopción destinados a transmitir información sobre las estrategias de difusión a escala de mercado BIM. Estos modelos reflejan nuestra investigación, iniciada a mediados de 2013, y están diseñados para ayudar a los responsables de formular políticas en la evaluación de los esfuerzos internacionales en la adopción de BIM y en el desarrollo de las iniciativas específicas de su propio país.
Uno de los modelos [i] que ya tenemos a punto para compartir es el Modelo de Acciones de Política (Fig.1). Se basa en una matriz que identifica tres actividades de implementación (comunicar, participar, supervisar) cruzadas con tres enfoques de implementación (pasivo, activo y asertivo) para generar nueve acciones de política:
Fig. 1. Modelo de Acciones de Política v1.4 (tamaño completo, versión actual)
Las tres actividades se detectan de forma sistemática en mercados donde hay un impulso descendente, con la intención de difundir las herramientas y flujos de trabajo BIM. Lo que varía es la intensidad con la que se llevan a cabo estas actividades y la combinación de tipos de actores interesados (p. e. gobiernos, asociaciones industriales, comunidades de prácticas) que realizan el esfuerzo de desarrollo de la política [ii]. Es decir, cada actividad (comunicar, practicar, supervisar) se puede abordar a tres niveles de intensidad (pasivo, activo o asertivo) que corresponden a las diferencias entre las actitudes culturales y dinámicas de poder de los distintos mercados. Los profesionales en un país (p.e. un país del SE asiático) pueden solicitar a su gobierno que opte por un enfoque asertivo, profesionales en otro país (p.e. US o Australia) pueden preferir un enfoque activo o incluso uno más pasivo.
|
[1] PASIVO |
[2] ACTIVO |
[3] ASERTIVO |
---|---|---|---|
[A] COMUNICAR |
Concienciar: el responsable informa a las partes interesadas sobre la importancia, beneficios y retos del sistema/proceso a través de comunicaciones formales e informales |
Educar: el responsable genera guías informativas para educar a las partes interesadas en los entregables específicos, requisitos y flujos de trabajo del sistema/proceso |
Prescribir: el responsable detalla el sistema/proceso a adoptar por las partes interesadas
|
[B] PRACTICAR |
Fomentar: el responsable lleva a cabo talleres y eventos de networking para fomentar que las partes interesadas adopten el sistema/proceso |
Incentivar: el responsable proporciona recompensas, incentivos financieros y un trato preferencial a las partes interesadas que adoptan el sistema/proceso |
Aplicar: el responsable incluye (favorece) o excluye (penaliza) a las partes interesadas en función de la respectiva adopción del sistema / proceso |
[C] SUPERVISAR |
Observar: el responsable observa cómo (o si) han adoptado el sistema/proceso las partes interesadas |
Trazar: el responsable inspecciona, traza y examina cómo/si las partes interesadas adoptan el sistema/proceso |
Control: el responsable establece un desencadenante financiero, etapas de cumplimiento y normas obligatorias para el sistema/proceso prescrito |
Table 1. Matriz de Acciones de Política
Como se describe en la Tabla 1, los tres enfoques de política significan una intensificación de la implicación de los responsables para facilitar la adopción de BIM: desde un observador pasivo hasta un controlador más asertivo.
Estas acciones de política se presentan con poco detalle. Huelga decir que cada una de las nueve acciones todavía puede dividirse en tareas más pequeñas. Por ejemplo, la acción de incentivar [B2] se puede subdividir en varias tareas de incentivar: p.e., [B2.1] hacer un régimen fiscal favorable para la adopción de BIM, [B2.2] desarrollar una política de compras BIM, y [B2.3] introducir un fondo de innovación centrado en BIM.
El Modelo de Acciones de Política refleja una variedad de acciones que los responsables de formular políticas realizan (o pueden realizar) en cada mercado para facilitar la adopción de BIM. Es importante destacar que todos los enfoques son igualmente válidos. Sin embargo, es muy importante para los responsables seleccionar la combinación de acciones de política que mejor satisfaga las necesidades únicas de su mercado (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Gráfico muestra v1.1 de Patrones de Acción de Política (tamaño completo, versión actual)
El gráfico-muestra de Patrones de Acción Política (Figura 2) proporciona una comparación rápida de las acciones de difusión llevadas a cabo por responsables en diferentes mercados. Cada patrón representa las acciones de política llevadas (o que se pueden) a cabo por responsables. Por ejemplo, el patrón superior-izquierda representa un enfoque totalmente pasivo (Concienciar + Fomentar + Observar), mientras que el patrón inferior-derecha representa una mezcla de enfoques asertivos y activos (Prescribir + Incentivar + Trazar).
Actualización de 17 Dec 2015: en el Canal de BIM Framework tienen a su disposición un video explicando el Modelo de Acciones de Política:
Tengan en cuenta que el Modelo de Acción de Política y otros modelos de Macro Adopción todavía se están perfeccionando. A mediados de 2015 (estimación) se proporcionará información más detallada, una vez que la investigación se publique formalmente. Hasta entonces, iremos presentando estos modelos y los primeros hallazgos en una serie de foros y medios de comunicación sociales. La primera presentación ya se ha realizado en Geo-BIM 2014 (20 de noviembre de 2014); la segunda será en European BIM Summit 2015 Barcelona (12 de febrero de 2015). Para próximas presentaciones adicionales y foros web, por favor suscríbase a BIMThinkspace.com (arriba-derecha) y sigan nuestras cuentas de Twitter (@KassemmMhm or @bsuccar). Gracias.
[i] Policy’s maker = Responsable de formular la política
[ii] Otro modelo – el Modelo de Componentes de Macro Madurez – ya ha sido utilizado para guiar el desarrollo de las políticas BIM en Brasill. Por favor, consulte “Strategy for the diffusion of Building Information Modelling in Brazil, Experiences Exchange in BIM -Building Information Modelling” (Apoio aos Diálogos Setoriais UE-Brasil, Fase II). Descargar la Presentación (2.2Mb)
[iii] Esto se trata en el Modelo de Responsabilidades de Macro Difusión a publicar en una etapa posterior.
The original article in English is authored by Bilal Succar. This Spanish translation is provided by Victor Roig, on behalf of BIMETRIC, a consultancy based in Barcelona, Spain. BIMETRIC assists design and construction companies to achieve operational excellence through BIM and LEAN principles". The editor wishes to thank BIMETRIC for contributing to the spread of BIM knowledge across the Spanish-speaking world.
Cuando se habla sobre la difusión de BIM en una organización (micro) o en todo un mercado (macro), habitualmente emergen dos términos: descendente o ascendente.
La difusión DESCENDENTE (UP-BOTTOM) es cuando una autoridad ejerce una presión ordenando la adopción de una solución específica que percibe como favorable. Un buen ejemplo de una dinámica BIM macro descendente es el mandato BIM Nivel 2 de UK1 y los hitos de balance de propuestas BIM de Singapur2. A nivel micro, la difusión descendente sucede cuando la alta gerencia de una organización (independientemente de su tamaño y posición en la cadena de suministro) ordena la adopción de soluciones específicas. Mediante estas presiones – a veces coercitivas – las soluciones empiezan a difundirse a través de la cadena de mando y – si van acompañadas de educación e incentivos – se adoptan.
The original English version of this article was first published as Episode 19: top-DOWN, bottom-UP and middle-OUT BIM diffusion (August 15, 2013). Article in Spanish continues below:
La difusión ASCENDENTE (BOTTOM-UP) hace referencia a la adopción de tecnologías, procesos y políticas desde la raíz, sin un mandato coercitivo. A nivel macro, esto sucede cuando pequeñas organizaciones o aquellas que se encuentran al final de la cadena de mando/suministro adoptan una solución o concepto innovador; lentamente la solución se convierte en una práctica común; y gradualmente se difunde hacia lo alto de la cadena de suministro/mando (como en el caso de Australia). De igual manera, a nivel micro, la difusión ascendente se da cuando empleados de la parte baja de la cadena de mando introducen una solución innovadora y – con el paso del tiempo – esta solución se convierte en conocimiento y es entonces cuando los cargos medios y de gerencia la adoptan.
Aunque estas dos dinámicas sean fácilmente perceptibles, existe una tercera dinámica, oculta a simple vista: el patrón de difusión RADIAL (MIDDLE-OUT)
La difusión radial la aplican todas aquellas organizaciones o individuos situados en la zona intermedia de sus ámbitos, entre la zona ‘baja’ y la ‘alta’. A nivel micro de una organización, se da cuando los jefes de equipo, directores de departamento y gerentes de línea impulsan aquello que han adoptado personalmente, hacia arriba y abajo de la cadena de mando. A nivel macro de mercado, la dinámica radial se aplica cuando organizaciones de tamaño medio (respecto al mercado – p.e. grandes contratistas en US) influyen en la adopción de una solución por parte de organizaciones más pequeñas de la parte baja de la cadena de suministro. También influyen o impulsan de forma activa a que organizaciones mayores, asociaciones o autoridades de la parte alta de la cadena de suministro/mando adopten, o eventualmente estandaricen, sus soluciones.
Fig.1 Actualizado May 2015: este modelo se conoce como modelo de Dinámicas de Macro Difusión (ver última versión)
Las diferentes organizaciones y mercados muestran una dinámica más que otra debido a una serie de variables sociales3 o impulsadas por el mercado4. Sin embargo, las dinámicas de difusión descendente, ascendente y radial son complementarias e incluso, mutuamente inclusivas. Pensar que una dinámica puede ser mejor que las otras es erróneo. Si bien existen algunas evidencias que una dinámica descendente fomenta tasas de adopción en una organización o un mercado más rápidas, no hay pruebas – aparte del maquillaje BIM y el ruido en twitter - que ello implique una inyección sostenible de flujos y entregables BIM.
Actualización de 26 Sep 2015: en el Canal de BIM Framework tienen a su disposición un video explicando Las Dinámicas de Difusión:
[1] El término ‘BIM Nivel 2’ o ‘Madurez Nivel 2’ que presenta el modelo de Bew-Richards (2008) realmente es un hito basado en el consenso para guiar y regular la adopción de BIM por etapas en la industria de Reino Unido. El uso del término ‘madurez’ es un poco desafortunado ya que estos niveles tienen una definición de balance (p.e. ¿a qué se refiere el Nivel 3?) y no se puede usar para medir/calificar la capacidad BIM de organizaciones.
[2] The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) tiene una serie de hitos de balance que cubren las propuestas BIM. Por ejemplo, establece Julio 2015 como hito para que los proyectos de arquitectura e ingeniería de nuevas construcciones > 5000m2 se presenten en BIM de forma obligatoria
[3] Consulte Las presiones isomorfas (presiones coercitivas, miméticas y normativas) - investigación llevada a cabo por DiMaggio y Powell (1983), recientemente adaptada para BIM por Cao, Li and Wang (2014):
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” Am. Sociol. Rev., 48(2), 147–160
Cao, D., Li, H. and Wang, G. (2014) 'Impacts of Isomorphic Pressures on BIM Adoption in Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management’ y Cao, D., Li, H. and Wang, G. (2014) 'Impacts of Isomorphic Pressures on BIM Adoption in Construction Projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,(preview published July 8, 2014).
[4] Las variables de mercado incluyen la oferta y demanda, los riesgos y recompensas, y una serie de presiones competitivas.
[5] Según Cooper y Zmud (1990), la adopción no es más que la segunda etapa de un proceso de difusión de seis etapas: iniciación, adopción, adaptación, aceptación, rutinización e infusión.
Cooper, R. B. and Zmud, R. W. (1990) 'Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach', Management Science, 36(2), pp. 123-139.
The original article in English is authored by Bilal Succar. This Spanish translation is provided by Victor Roig, on behalf of BIMETRIC, a consultancy based in Barcelona, Spain. BIMETRIC assists design and construction companies to achieve operational excellence through BIM and LEAN principles". The editor wishes to thank BIMETRIC for contributing to the spread of BIM knowledge across the Spanish-speaking world.
Ten years is a long time…that’s how long this blog has been running! On Oct 29, 2005, the first post was published and, since then, a few more.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank those who subscribed or commented. Also, my sincere appreciation to all colleagues who contributed their thoughts as guest authors, translated posts into their native language, and peer-reviewed many of the episodes.
Much has changed over the past 10 years and much is still the same. Technologies change fast but not industry’s aspirations which are yet to be fulfilled by this thing called BIM. Let’s see what the next decade brings…Bilal Succar.
A number of BIM ThinkSpace Episodes are now available in Italian. These translations follow a collaborative effort with Mr Lorenzo Nissim and his colleagues at the Institute for BIM Italy (iBIMi). I truly appreciate their efforts in sharing the BIM Episodes with a wider international audience.
Please note that both Italian and Spanish translations cover all Figures (images) and are true to the original with the exception of a few terms/phrases.
The below Episodes are available in Italian on the iBIMi website (last updated Aug 26, 2015):
¿Cuál es el país líder mundial en la adopción de BIM? ¿Es Singapur, Reino Unido o EE.UU.? ¿Tal vez sea Australia o uno de los países escandinavos?
Para el profesional atareado, este tema es irrelevante... Es decir, ¿por qué nos importa qué país es BIM-maduro, madurando en BIM o BIM-bebé [1]? BIM no es un deporte nacional, y cualquier novedad que valga la pena en un país finalmente cruzará la frontera digital para llegar a los demás... ¿verdad [2]? Pero para los asesores de BIM, los investigadores y los responsables políticos, la identificación de la madurez BIM de los países en realidad es muy útil. Si se analiza correctamente, la madurez BIM de un país pone de relieve qué se ha logrado, qué falta, y qué se puede aprender de los demás.
The original English version of this article was first published as Episode 18: Comparing the BIM Maturity of Countries (August 15, 2013). Article in Spanish continues below:
Pero cómo se mide la madurez BIM de los países: ¿nos basamos en las opiniones personales de los personajes públicos que posicionan a su país como un líder BIM mundial?; ¿confiamos en las cifras de ventas de los desarrolladores de software que comparan las tasas de adopción entre países?; o ¿nos tragamos los gráficos de quesitos de las encuestas de impulso comercial del sector?
Estas preguntas - que deben responderse con un no [3], en realidad no [4] y tal vez [5] respectivamente – nos han animado, al Profesor Asociado Mohamad Kassem [6] y a mí, a invertir algunos esfuerzos de colaboración en la investigación de este tema. Aunque todavía queda mucho trabajo por hacer, hemos identificado dos series de indicadores a probar. La primera serie se centra en evaluar el tipo de conocimiento BIM publicado por diferentes países, mientras que la segunda evalúa la disponibilidad / tipo de educación BIM que se ofrece en cada país.
Para instigar una discusión con profesionales afines, presentaremos estos indicadores en varios foros del sector durante 2013 y 2014. Además, para invitar a la colaboración a otros investigadores (tanto de la industria como del sector académico), publicaremos un número de artículos académicos para aclarar los indicadores propuestos y permitir que otros los escudriñen / mejoren. El primer artículo que se publicará [7] se titula "Un enfoque propuesto para comparar la madurez BIM de los países". Cubrirá el primer conjunto de indicadores relacionados con tipos de conocimiento BIM - por favor lea su resumen a continuación o descargue el documento completo desde aquí:
Resumen: "los conceptos y herramientas BIM han proliferado en toda la industria de la construcción. Esto se evidencia en los resultados comparativos de las tasas de adopción de BIM reportados a través de una serie de encuestas de la industria. Sin embargo, estas encuestas suelen cubrir un pequeño número de actores de la industria; tienen por objeto establecer las tasas de adopción de las organizaciones en lugar de los mercados; y no están respaldadas por marcos teóricos para guiar la recolección y análisis de datos. Sobre la base de un marco teórico publicado, este documento propone tres indicadores para aumentar los datos de encuestas y ayudar a establecer la madurez general BIM de países. Estos indicadores se aplican a las publicaciones BIM notables (NBP) y evaluar su contenido de conocimientos BIM (BKC). NBP son documentos del sector públicamente disponibles destinados a facilitar la adopción de BIM; mientras que BKC son etiquetas especializadas (por ejemplo, informe, manual y contrato) que se utilizan para describir el contenido de NBP. Los tres indicadores - la disponibilidad de NBP, la distribución de contenidos de NBP, y la relevancia de NBP - se aplican en la evaluación de los entregables de conocimiento de los tres países - Estados Unidos, Reino Unido y Australia - elegidos por su similar cultura de construcción y su activo panorama BIM. A continuación el documento describe cómo estos indicadores complementarios pueden informar el desarrollo de políticas e identificar los vacíos de conocimiento en todo el mercado".
Para validar el primer conjunto de indicadores de madurez BIM, en breve vamos a empezar a recoger datos a través de la plataforma BIM Excellence. Si estás interesado en participar en esta investigación o sugerir nuevas métricas, por favor dejar un comentario más abajo o envíame un correo electrónico personal haciendo clic aquí
[1] Términos adoptados del trabajo de Jayasena and Weddikkara (Assessing the BIM Maturity in a BIM Infant Industry PDF 232KB) quien argumenta que BIM Maturity Levels de Richard-Bew y BIM Maturity Stages de Succar no son adecuados para medir la madurez de países ‘BIM-bebé’. No estoy de acuerdo con esta apreciación pero dejaré el tema para otro post.
[2] En realidad no es cierto... Un aumento en la madurez BIM en una organización o país puede llevar al desarrollo de soluciones muy específicas para esa organización o país.
[3] Las opiniones de los personajes públicos (y los expertos en la materia) son valiosos hasta que se contradicen entre sí - que lo hacen!
[4] Las cifras de ventas no son una medida fiable de uso de software, debido a los intereses comerciales de las empresas de software y la proliferación de software pirata en algunos países.
[5] La fiabilidad de las encuestas de la industria depende de la metodología utilizada para recoger y analizar datos.
[6] Technology Futures Institute, Teesside University, Middleborough, UK email: m.kassem@tees.ac.uk
[7] Se presentará un artículo en CIB W078 conference in Beijing (October 9-12, 2013). Un capítulo más extenso que abarca más países se publicará a principios de 2014 como parte de un libro de ASCE revisado por expertos.
The original article in English is authored by Bilal Succar. This Spanish translation is provided by Victor Roig, on behalf of BIMETRIC, a consultancy based in Barcelona, Spain. BIMETRIC assists design and construction companies to achieve operational excellence through BIM and LEAN principles". The editor wishes to thank BIMETRIC for contributing to the spread of BIM knowledge across the Spanish-speaking world.
This post introduces Model Uses and how they can be applied in practice. This apparently simple - but actually quite complex – topic has not been given its due care over the past few years. The rush to standardise every process and deliverable has evidently taken precedence over the efforts to simplify the collaboration process and minimise project complexity. Model Uses – as defined in this article – offer a structured language for translating project goals into project outcomes, and thus brings clarity to services’ procurement and performance improvement.
This is a lengthy post and will thus try to avoid unnecessary distractions: lengthy introductions, side-track topics, and all discussions that can be delayed until a solid foundation for Model Uses is set. For example, this episode will not explore how overall project objectives are defined; the potential effects of Model Uses on project roles and supply chain responsibilities; or the legal implications of applying Model Uses in services’ procurement. Although these topics are important and will be discussed in future episodes, this post has a singular focus: introduce Model Uses in an unambiguous way, and explore how they can be used in practice.
Figure 1. Model Uses – term cloud
Let’s start with a few simple questions:
What is the easiest way to specify the modelling requirements of a project? Is it by defining what needs to be modelled, what analyses to be performed, or what project outputs to be extracted?
The obvious answer is ‘all of the above’…But, how can we specify all these requirements, activities and outputs in a simple and consistent way? And, how can we link these to the abilities of individuals, organizations and teams?
This peer-reviewed [1] episode will address these question by introducing Model Uses (Figure 1), a total rethink, and a practical expansion of the ‘BIM Uses’ taxonomy (Messner and Kreider, 2013)(NBIMS v3, 2015) [2].
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
According to the BIM Dictionary, Model Uses are the “intended or expected project deliverables from generating, collaborating-on and linking 3D models to external databases”. Each Model Use represents a set of defined requirements, specialised activities and specific project outcomes, grouped together under a single heading so they can be more easily specified, measured and learned.
The main drivers for generating - and publically sharing - a comprehensive Model Uses List (Section III) is to contribute towards the reduction of project complexity by (a) facilitating communication between individuals, organizations and teams; (b) clarifying project requirements and desired project outcomes; and (c) linking these requirements and outcomes to their respective competencies, tools and methods. By properly defining Model Uses, we can more easily:
Before introducing the Model Uses List, let’s explores how Model Uses have been conceptualised, identified and classified:
This Section will clarify the knowledge sources reviewed to identify Model Uses. It will also shed some light on the method followed to generate a Model Uses List which is reasonably comprehensive, semantically precise, yet taxonomically flexible to allow future customisation, localisation and extension.
Model Uses rely on the conceptual structures of the BIM Framework, namely: the Tri-Axial Framework, Competency Framework, and BIM Ontology. For more information about these structures, please refer to this post – published concurrently - on the BIM Framework blog.
Model Uses are identified by reviewing and comparing several publically-available knowledge sources from a number of countries:
The sources listed above provided a rich inventory of well-defined and undefined Model Uses. Applying the Model Use definition presented earlier, the author identified, classified and aggregated [4] a large number of candidate Model Uses. These were reviewed and duplicate terms removed. If two terms had very similar connotations, the one appearing more frequently in the above sources became the Model Use; and the other less used terms were added as synonyms.
The above resources also helped clarify a number of competing terms and prompted the development of new ones.
The two terms - Model Use and BIM Use - can be applied interchangeably. However, in my view, it is preferable to use Model Use for a number of reasons - including:
Whether you prefer to adopt the term ‘BIM Use’ or ‘Model Use’ has little or no practical consequences. However, for consistency across this article and all other episodes, Model Uses will be treated as the umbrella term that covers BIM Uses, GIS Uses, PLM Uses and other model-based use cases.
It is important to differentiate between Model Uses (what we are able to deliver, plan to deliver, or request others to deliver) and Model-based Deliverables (what is delivered). In a sense, “deliverables and BIM uses [Model Uses] are two sides of the one coin – BIM uses represent the tool or process – deliverables represent the output.” (NATSPEC BIM Project Inception Guide, 2014, p. 6).
In other words, Model Uses translate quantifiable project requirements (input) into measureable project outputs [7]. How information defined within Model Uses are transformed into actual Model-based Deliverables will be elaborated upon - using Process, Interaction and Transaction Maps [8] - in future BIM ThinkSpace episodes.
To avoid confusing Model Uses (e.g. Clash Detection, Thermal Analysis, and Relocation Management) with Model-based deliverables, the later will always be suffixed with a Document Type (e.g. Clash Detection Report, Thermal Analysis Chart, and Relocation Management Animation).
According to buildingSMART [9], an "IFC View Definition, or Model View Definition, MVD, defines a subset of the IFC schema, that is needed to satisfy one or many Exchange Requirements of the AEC industry." Also according to NBIMS, the “aim of the Information Delivery Manual (IDM) (buildingSMART Processes) and Model View Definition (MVD) is to specify exactly which information is to be exchanged in each exchange scenario and how to relate it to the IFC model." (US-NBIMS-v3, Section 2.5.4.4). To date, only a few Model Views are defined via official MVDs [10], and even less MVDs have been implemented by BIM Software Tools.
Irrespective of the number of MVDs currently available, will be defined in the future, or will be implemented by willing software developers, there is a prior and separate need for a comprehensive list of Model Uses. This is because:
We can approach Model Uses in many different ways: based on how, when and by whom they are applied within organizations and on projects; based on the competency contents of each Model Use; or based on the legal implications of applying Model Uses to distribute responsibilities among individuals, organizations, and teams. All these are valid approaches that must be discussed after we establish a solid foundation to build upon. To lay such a foundation, I will apply an Information Management Lens [13] to isolate Model Uses from amongst all information available throughout a project’s lifecycle (Figure 2):
Figure 2. Project Information, from Unstructured to Integrated (Full Size)
Figure 2 abstracts all the information available throughout a project’s lifecycle into colourful shapes [14]. These shapes (and their placement within concentric circles) represent five types of information organised according to their computability:
[..] General Background Information (GBI): information that has no direct influence on the project (e.g. the history of the land upon which the facility is built). GBI represent non-relevant project information and is thus not represented in the above image;
[❶] Unstructured Project Information (UPI): non-computable data, undocumented, and temporary project information (e.g. hand sketches and casual phone chats). UPI is represented as formless shapes of different colours;
[❷] Structured Project Information (SPI): computable data and organised information reflecting particular purposes and use cases (e.g. a marketing video or a Request for Proposal). SPI includes documents, drawings, maps, messages, photos, reports, schedules and visualisations. SPI is represented as unconnected 2D geometric shapes;
[❸] Modelled Information (MI): information represented within a 3D model to reflect particular Model Uses (e.g. Structural Analysis and Asset Tracking). Modelled Information include those used for planning, simulating, quantifying, constructing, fabricating, operating, maintaining, monitoring, and controlling. MI is represented as connected 3D geometric shapes; and
[❹] Integrated Data (ID): interconnected, highly-structured and granular information; covering multiple projects, portfolios and programmes; derived from varied information sources, including models and all types of Structured Project Information. ID is represented as a perfect sphere [15] of interconnected 3D shapes.
The above classification is our key to identifying the type of information residing within (or can reside within) 3d models, and can thus be represented by Model Uses (MU)s. It also helps us to identify the type of information that reside outside the Model (e.g. a satellite image, or a CNC script) and are represented by Information Uses (IU)s or Data Uses (DU)s linked into 3D models.
I will expand on the critical relationships between MUs, IUs and DUs in a future post. For the remainder of this episode, I will focus exclusively on Type 3, Modelled Information, and how it can be represented by Model Uses of different classes and categories.
It is possible to define tens or even hundreds of Model Uses (MU)s to represent modelled or model-able information. However, it is important to define the minimum workable number (no more, no less) that allows two seemingly contradictory objectives: accuracy of representation and flexibility of use.
With respect to accuracy of representation, if the number of Model Uses is too small, then their definitions would be wide, less precise and subdivisible into sub-uses. However, if the number of Model Uses is too large, then their definitions would be narrow, include overlapping activities/responsibilities and thus cause confusion. What we need is a Model Use breakdown which is ‘just right’ for effective communication and application.
With respect to flexibility of use, and to allow the application of Model Uses across varied contexts, Model Use definitions must exclude unnecessary qualifications that vary from user to user, and from one market to another. To this end, Model Uses are defined independently from their user, industry, market, phase, priority, and inherent activities:
By combining the two objectives - accuracy and flexibility – and after identifying the point of balance between them [17], the below Model Uses List has been developed and is released for discussion below. This release (v0.73) is based on numerous iterations [18], consultations [19], and tests [20]:
The Model Uses List (v0.73 – Sep 8, 2015) represents the latest stable taxonomy with 125 Model Uses, organized under 3 Categories and 9 Series [21] - Figure 3:
Figure 3. Model Use categories and series (Full Size)
CATEGORY I: Model Uses > General Model Uses
General Model Uses are applicable across industries, information systems and knowledge domains. General MUs include the word ‘modelling’ in their name and are typically measured using granularity metrics (e.g. Level of Definition [22], Level of Development [23] and Granularity Level [24]) at component/item level. There are currently 52 General MUs - with 100s of potential synonyms [25] - organized as a single MU Series, General Modelling (1000-1990). The following are sample General Model Uses [with a few synonyms]:
CATEGORY II: Model Uses > Domain Model Uses
Domain Model Uses are industry-specific. The ones identified below are Construction Domain Model Uses (or BIM Uses for short). The naming format for each Domain Model Use is either a Noun + Adjective (or just an Adjective). There are currently 73 Domain MUs, organized in seven MU Series:
Series 2: Capturing and Representing (2000-2990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
2010 |
2060 |
||
2020 |
2070 |
||
2030 |
2080 |
||
2040 |
2090 |
||
2050 |
|
|
Series 3: Planning and Designing (3000-3990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
3010 |
3070 |
||
3020 |
3080 |
||
3030 |
3090 |
||
3040 |
3100 |
||
3050 |
3120 |
||
3060 |
3130 |
Series 4: Simulating and Quantifying (4000-4990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
4010 |
4140 |
||
4020 |
4150 |
||
4030 |
4160 |
||
4040 |
4170 |
||
4050 |
4180 |
||
4060 |
4190 |
||
4065 |
Construction Operation Analysis (added Feb 8, 2017) |
||
4070 |
4200 |
||
4080 |
Egress and Ingress Analysis |
4210 |
|
4090 |
Energy Utilisation (updated Oct 2017) |
4220 |
|
4100 |
4230 |
||
4110 |
4240 |
||
4120 |
4250 |
Life Cycle Assessment (updated Feb 2017) |
|
4130 |
4260 |
Series 5: Constructing and Fabricating (5000-5990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
5010 |
5050 |
||
5020 |
5060 |
||
5030 |
5070 |
||
5040 |
5080 |
Series 6: Operating and Maintaining (6000-6990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
6010 |
6050 |
||
6020 |
6060 |
||
6030 |
6070 |
||
6040 |
|
|
Series 7: Monitoring and Controlling (7000-7990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
7010 |
7030 |
||
7020 |
7040 |
Series 8: Linking and Extending (8000-8990), synonyms not listed
Code |
Model Uses |
Code |
Model Uses |
8010 |
8050 |
||
8020 |
8060 |
||
8030 |
8070 |
||
8040 |
BIM/GIS Overlappping |
|
|
CATEGORY III: Model Uses > Custom Model Uses
Custom Model Uses are a combination of General and Domain model uses. Custom MUs are tailored – when needed – to each project, Client/Employer or market’s specific modelling requirements. There is no fixed number of Custom MUs and are all organized under a single MU Series, Custom Modelling (9000-9990). The following are hypothetical Custom Model Uses:
Note: the full Model Uses List is hosted on BIMexcellence.org as a community page under a limited Creative Commons License. For the latest iteration, license information, and change log, please refer to BIMexcellence.org/model-uses.
After introducing the Model Uses List, it’s beneficial to identify a couple of ways to apply MUs in practice: Model Uses as an Implementation Template, and Model Uses as a Performance Metric (for other applications, please refer back to Section I):
From an implementation perspective, each Model Use is a ‘container of activities’ that – if completed - would deliver a predefined project outcome or meet a specific Client/Employer’s requirement. Let’s take Clash Detection, a Domain Model Use, and identify some of the activities [26] it contains, organized against six Performance Improvement Phases [27]:
Note: [Clash Detection] can be replaced with any other [Domain Model Use]
Model Uses and their respective Model-based Deliverables are useful for establishing the performance and compatibility of multiple stakeholders across different Organizational Scales (OScales) - Table 1:
Assessee (OScale) |
What is Assessed |
Metric used |
Possible Results |
Individuals, Groups, Work Teams and Project Teams |
Knowledge, skill and experience in generating, or benefiting from, Model-based Deliverables |
Competency: None; Basic, Intermediate; Advanced; or Expert |
|
Organizations and Organizational Teams |
Ability to deliver (Capability), and quality of what’s being delivered (Maturity) |
Capability (a binary metric) and the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI) |
Capability: Yes or No Maturity: Low; Medium-Low; Medium; Medium-High; or High |
Projects and BIMmodels |
The number of Model-based Deliverables derived from the project’s federated or integrated model |
Model Richness Variable (MRV) |
Richness: value ranging from 0 (poor/none) to 1 (rich/all applicable MUs) |
Industries and Markets |
The availability of well-defined Model Uses within a market |
Availability of a Model Uses List. Assessed as part of Component VII: Standardised Parts and Deliverables, within the Macro Maturity Components model |
Availability: Yes or No Maturity: Low, Medium-Low; Medium; Medium-High; or High |
Table 1. Model Uses as a performance metric across organizational scales (partial)
Let’s demonstrate how Model Uses can be used in performance measurement:
An informed Client/Employer wants to assess the team assigned to a large and complex BIM project. After establishing its goals and project requirements, the Client/Employer uses the Model Uses List as a simple checklist to identify the Model-based Workflows it needs during – or the Model-based Deliverables it expects at the completion of - the project. Based on the checklist items, it commissions an assessment with several sets of questions [28], each set focusing on a single Model Use, with the following sample questions:
…etc.
Note: [Cost Estimation] can be replaced with any other [Domain Model Use]
Upon completion of the assessment – delivered through a dedicated assessment tool - the Client/Employer was able to compare the project team’s abilities to its predefined requirements (Figure 4):
Figure 4. Model Use Wheel – showing Capability (left) and Maturity (Right) – Full Size
As depicted in Figure 4, the highlighted cells in Model Use Wheel A (Left) identify all the Model Uses required by the Client/Employer on a large and complex BIM project. Each highlight (blue) represents a single checklist item. The highlighted cells in Model Use Wheel B (Right) provide a visual summary of the Project Team’s competence (assessed as a single unit) against each Model Use. The hypothetical results vary from Low (Light Grey, 0-20%); Medium-Low (Yellow, 21-40%); Medium (Light Orange, 41-60%); Medium-High (Dark Orange, 61-80%); or High (Red, 81-100%).
Based on this visual analysis, it is clear that a number of Client/Employer’s expectations cannot be met by the project team. For example, Model Uses 4060, 4110, 4230, 5080, 8010 and 9120 are practically not available. Based on this, the Client may address this shortfall by (a) requiring specific team members to acquire these abilities; (b) assigning a specialist service provider to assist the project team; or even (c)...
Of course, it is not necessary to use the dedicated assessment tool or the Model Use Wheel to establish basic team capability against Model Uses. One can do that using basic questions and a basic rating system (e.g. traffic light colours) to get a significant return on assessment effort.
This post introduced the Model Uses concept as a foundation to build-upon, templates to use, and classifications to extend. Of course, there’s much much more to be said about MUs and especially how they affect supply chain roles and enable an intuitive, performance-based alternative to prescriptive protocols. I'm hoping to discuss these strategic aspects and additional practical applications of Model Uses in the near future.
Finally, for the Model Uses concept to deliver the many benefits described in Section I, it needs to be further extended through a collaborative and open community effort. You are therefore invited to adopt, test and modify the Model Uses List for your own requirements. That is, under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share-alike 3.0 Unported licence, please feel free to use the concepts, structures and list to populate procurement documents, generate implementation checklists, and develop learning modules.
This is a peer-reviewed Blog Post. BIM ThinkSpace Episode 24 has been reviewed by international experts from four countries. The names and affiliations of all reviewers are listed below in alphabetical order:
I am indebted to all reviewers for their excellent commentary on an earlier version of this post. Their insights and recommendations have greatly improved this article; thank you to each and all!
[1] This BIM ThinkSpace episode has been reviewed by 8 domain experts prior to initial publication. Additional information is provided under Acknowledgements.
[2] BIM Uses is defined as the “method of applying Building Information Modeling during a facility’s lifecycle to achieve one or more specific objectives” (NBIMS v3, 2015, Section 5.9.1). The term was popularised by the published works of John Messner, Ralph Kreider and others from Penn-State University (2010-13). It is worth noting that nearly all BIM Use definitions currently in circulation emanate from the original work conducted 5 years ago. Since then, very little if any systematic investigations have been conducted. For more information about BIM Uses, please refer to “The Uses of BIM | Classifying and Selecting BIM Uses” (v0.9, September 2013, Page 6) and this Prezi clarifying how the 25 BIM Uses were identified.
[3] Model Uses can be applied to Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), and other types of industry-specific methods and processes.
[4] The research method used for identifying, classifying, aggregating and using/re-using Model Uses is the same as the one used for Competency Items (both Model Uses and Competency Items are considered Knowledge Blocks by the BIM Ontology). For more information about the identification method, please refer to the Competency Flow model (Succar et al., 2013). http://bit.ly/BIMPaperA6
[5] Understanding BIM as a model in the US gave rise to another acronym – VDC (Virtual Design and Construction) - that addresses the semantic shortfall. We do not observe this BIM+VDC coupling in countries where the BIM acronym designates modelling.
[6] There are many Model Uses that apply to across BIM and PLM (e.g. Sheet Metal Cutting), and across BIM and GIS (e.g. Urban Modelling).
[7] Model Uses are an expansion and re-organization of BIM Outcomes, “the possible desired results to be obtained from the application of BIM” as defined in ISO/TS 12911:2012ISO/TS 12911:2012 Framework for building information modelling (BIM) guidance.
[8] Model Uses can help identify and quantify stakeholders’ business requirements according to their respective project roles. By identifying these business requirements, Model Uses would facilitate the development of detailed process maps clarifying the interactions and transactions between these roles. For more information about process, interaction and transaction maps, please refer to ISO/DIS 29481-1:2014 Building information modelling - Information delivery manual.
[9] Refer to buildingSMART International, MVD Summary - last accessed Sep 1, 2015.
[10] There are currently only a couple of ‘official’ buildingSMART International MVDs (for IFC4) supporting a small number of ‘workflows’: coordination planning; clash detection; quantity take-off; background/integrated reference; and construction sequencing.
[12] The term ‘Client/Employer’ has two connotations: internal (e.g. the manager, head office, or employer of individuals); and external (e.g. the general contractor is the Client/Employer of the sub-contractor)
[13] Information Management is one of the many ‘Disciplinary Lenses’ within the Tri-axial Framework. To understand BIM Lenses, please watch the BIM Lenses video on the BIM Framework’s Channel.
[14] The limited colours used in this model reflect the same general connotations of the wider range of colours used in earlier models - see earliest example (2005).
[15] The sphere shape is consistently used by the author to represent the highest level in any illustrated metric. Please refer to the post-BIM sphere in the Capability Stages Index (video shot), and the Optimised sphere in the BIM Maturity Index.
[16] At low BIM Capability (e.g. BIM Stage 1), only some Model Uses are applicable within each Project Lifecycle Phase (e.g. the Design Phase). However, at higher BIM Capability (i.e. BIM Stage 2 or BIM Stage 3), all Model Uses become applicable across all phases.
[17] The author is guided by Noy and McGuiness (2011) whose research identified multiple criteria for selecting or developing an ontology. These are: clarity, coherence, extensibility, minimal encoding bias, and minimum ontological commitment. Refer to http://www.lsi.upc.edu/~bejar/aia/aia-web/ontology101.pdf (PDF 282KB - last accessed Aug 11, 2015).
[18] The first mature Model Uses List (v0.2) was presented at RTC Australasia 2012. It included 99 Model Uses distributed against Project Lifecycle Phases. The next version (v0.3, 2013) included 50 Model Uses and – each subsequent version – included a different number of MUs based on varying identification criteria. The current Model Uses List (v0.73, published in this post) is a mature taxonomy: its subdivisions won’t significantly change any more but the naming/number of Model Uses may still vary with additional testing and user feedback.
[19] Earlier versions of the Model Uses List benefited from continual discussions with business colleagues and research students over the years. More recently, the current version (v0.73) benefited from the many good suggestions provided by peer-reviewers acknowledged above. Additional suggestions for improvement are always welcome!
[20] Model Uses are tested by including their Titles/Definitions within live assessment modules and project protocols (e.g. Employer’s Information Requirements), collating feedback from assessees and informed protocol users, and then – after refining Model Uses to reflect feedback – repeating the testing cycle. The tests are ongoing and, thus, Model Use numbers, classifications and descriptions are neither final nor conclusive. Even when numerous consultations, workshops and tests have been completed, the Model Uses List will continue to evolve as current modelling/analysis tools improve and new information systems/tools emerge.
[21] The 9 Model Use Series are Competency Topics belonging to the Operation Competency Set within the Domain Tier
[22] Level of Definition (LoD) is the term used in the UK and includes two parts: Level of Model Detail (geometric detail) and Level of Model Information (semantic richness).
[23] Level of Development (LOD) is the term used in the US (and Australia) and typically refers to both geometric and semantic richness.
[24] Granularity refers to the “scale or level of detail present in a set of data or other phenomenon” (Oxford Dictionary, 2014). There are four Granularity Levels (GLevels) in the BIM Framework (Low, Medium-low, Medium, Medium-High, and High) that can be assigned to an implementation template, assessment module, or learning unit.
[25] The number of General MUs are kept as low as possible by combining quasi-synonyms together. For example, ‘Plumbing Systems Modelling’ is considered a synonym to ‘Hydraulic Systems Modelling’. Also market-specific differentiations are kept to minimum. For example, the classification does not differentiate between ‘above ground’ and ‘below ground’ hydraulic systems as considered the norm in some markets.
[26] A Model Use (e.g. Cost Estimation) is defined at medium granularity, near the mid-point separating granular activities (e.g. calculating concrete volume or counting door handles) and a specialty (e.g. Cost Planning).
[27] The author follows the BIM Excellence Performance Improvement Lifecycle which includes 6 activity groups: scope, assess, analyse, plan, act, and measure.
[28] The number and format of these questions can vary greatly depending on the priority given to each Model Use and the Level of Evidence sought by the Client/Employer.