Consider the benefit achieved when a specialty contractor, working with a manufacturer, provides design information into the process at the early stages: Fabrication information in the form of shop drawings may begin for the specialty contractor at the design development phase, and the principal designer has enough information to avoid costly conflicts that usually become change orders and claims if found during the construction phase. At the same time, key materials are purchased.
At the heart of that capability is Building Information Modeling (BIM), an intelligent design and construction tool that also serves as a communication tool, having uses beyond simply the design and construction of a project. BIM’s capabilities can thrive in an integrated delivery model, particularly when used by all integrated team members.
When cost loaded, BIM may provide real-time estimates as the design changes to resolve conflicts. These are typical and obvious benefits of BIM, but the advantages go far beyond. With the enormous capacity for including intelligence in BIM, many other meaningful aspects of a project, such as long-term energy performance, human relationship to the design, and maintenance and operations functions are enhanced. In addition, the constructor’s work model can interact with the design model to virtually construct the project, thus reducing waste and inefficiencies compared to current practices. Extremely complex projects that formerly may not have been possible may now be implemented virtually and seamlessly, without the constraints of time, site, or finances.
BIM is not the primary driver, however. It’s a tool within the larger framework of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). And the U.S. architectural community is is actively adopting and promoting best practices for IPD and BIM. Primarily, they’re doing so as a result of findings by the Construction Users Round Table (CURT) that identified low productivity in the design and construction industry. In particular, the American Institute of Architects’ California Council (AIACC) — and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) at the national level — were determined to address the industry’s productivity problems. As a response to the CURT challenges to find a solution, AIACC initially determined that BIM was the solution to design and construction collaboration issues. While that was a good start, something seemed to be missing.
A joint industry task force, formed in 2006 under AIACC and McGraw Hill, determined that BIM is effective only if utilized within an integrated business model. The business model is the solution, and BIM is an essential part of what is, or will become, the ideal integrated delivery process.
But the task force first had to define IPD. The resulting document, Integrated Project Delivery: A Working Definition, defined IPD as “a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures, and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to reduce waste and optimize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction.”
The task force presented the document at the Change Conference in San Francisco in June 2007, which focused on IPD and inefficiencies that impact all participants in the design and construction marketplace. The more than 300 architects, contractors, owners, and public officials who attended were told that traditional ways of designing and constructing were no longer acceptable in today’s changing environment and that change is inevitable. As a result, design and construction teams must assemble early in the process; all team members must have open and equal access to information; and they must contribute and share proportionately in the risks and rewards of a given project.
This ultimately led to Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide, released by AIA on Nov. 5, 2007, which helps further define IPD as the design and construction industry continues to move toward a collaborative, team approach. It provides detailed analyses of new delivery models and offers best practices for working within the collaborative model, openly sharing information, executing value-based decision making, and utilizing the full technological capabilities of the team.
To fully understand how BIM fits into the IPD model, we must first understand the IPD basics of integration, collaboration, and information sharing.
First, integration — where all project participants are on board from the beginning (or as soon as practical thereafter), including the contractor who will eventually build the project — requires a shift to intensified programming and design effort up front. In addition, the leader should be the person or firm most able to manage the work, which will ultimately streamline the entire process.
Collaboration — the cooperative mindset or attitude all team members willingly adopt — is crucial. All parties must remain committed to working together as a team for the benefit of the project and maintain an environment of mutual respect and trust. This also means goals should be clear early, and a collaborative decision-making process, coupled with combined expertise, will ultimately lead to a mutual benefit and reward.
Information sharing — which could include BIM and Web-based information sharing sites — means open and enhanced communication is crucial. Team performance should remain the focus, in a “no blame” culture. Appropriate technologies should be shared by the team, and items such as BIM software should be interoperable among all participants. Co-location of team members to a common site enhances communication and therefore information sharing as well.
IPD seeks to break down traditional barriers to integration and collaboration by focusing on achieving shared goals. All team members provide whatever input they can to all aspects of the project. And team leadership may vary from project to project, depending on a number of considerations, such as contractual relations and the skills of individual team members.
Barbara Jackson, a DBIA board member and professor at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, Calif., insists that education is the key to transforming the architecture, engineering, and construction industry from a segregated to integrated services model. “Today’s young people are made for integrated project delivery. “Unfortunately only a few are being exposed to it in their educational environments,” she says. “Believe me, they will be all over BIM and every other technology that will allow them to leverage their creativity, innovation, and problem solving skills, and when that happens, they will blow all of the traditional competition out of the water.”
But even with interest in things such as the CURT whitepaper, many owners are skeptical. “Most contracts are geared to shifting risks to someone else, not sharing and mitigating risks as a collaborative front,” she adds. “What is required is just the opposite. High levels of engagement, dialogue, communication, and risk sharing are needed in IPD. Contracts that tell us what will happen if we are successful — relational or alliance contracting and not just transactional contracting — are needed as well.”
But the benefits are undeniable. For owners, IPD’s efficiency and enhanced early project knowledge allows them to positively transform their enterprise and provides a stronger understanding of outcomes, improved cost control and budget management, and less litigation.
IPD allows designers early contributions to the design and helps them anticipate project execution and construction methodology issues. This only improves decision-making, project quality, and financial performance. IPD enables more time for design, reduces documentation and construction administration time, and improves cost control and budget management.
For construction specialists, IPD also allows early contribution of expertise in enhanced construction techniques resulting in improved project quality and financial performance, provides opportunity for stronger project pre-planning, more timely and informed understanding of the design, and the ability to anticipate and resolve design-related issues through direct participation in the design process. This early participation also allows for construction sequencing visualization to improve means and methods prior to construction start, and improved cost control and schedule management.
Then, with the IPD framework established, BIM is a natural fit. But the introduction of new technology into the industry is seldom without its inherent challenges. BIM typically requires that the primary parties understand how the model will be developed, accessed, and used, and the model must seamlessly exchange information among participants. Software choices play a major part in this decision. And occasionally, third-party interoperable data exchanges — some of which are in development in the marketplace — must be employed to foster open communication.
Of course, with all integrated team members contributing to the design, the traditional lines of responsibility are blurred or erased altogether. But new contract models that account for this collective responsibility are emerging in the industry to keep up with the changes. Collaborative teaming arrangements also involve more information sharing than under traditional models. As a result, all team members must be comfortable with this arrangement and agree that information will only be used for the current project.
BIM is working. David S. Crawford, president and chief operating officer of Sundt Construction Inc., started using BIM two years ago, has an in-house BIM capability and is expanding BIM utilization on many projects.
“We had a fairly lengthy history of utilizing [computer aided design] drawings for our self-perform work operations [such as] concrete form design,” he says. “We use BIM on all of our design-build projects regardless of whether it is vertical or horizontal.” But in the often litigation- and change-order laden design-bid-build process, it’s a bit different. “We have not used BIM on a design-bid-build project yet because the opportunity to use it is severely limited in that application,” he says.
Crawford says they try to have all parties use the same software, but it’s not always possible, so they ensure good communication among all the working parts. But that’s only part of it. “On design-build projects, we insist on co-location throughout the design phase between our people and our architects or engineers,” he says. “What is more important than using the same software or a theoretical design, is making sure that we are modeling what is going to be fabricated and installed. Many of the subcontractors use products that integrate their estimating and fabrication functions; it is critical that these are integrated into the collaborative building model.”
Overall, BIM shortens “the interface between design and construction” and allows them to design to the owner’s budget and helps eliminate field problems, ultimately reducing information request and change orders. “The effective utilization of BIM requires a major culture change of on behalf of the participants because the selection of the team is based on qualifications and competence — not low bid,” Crawford says. “It requires a team culture by everyone involved and a major re-sequencing of the activities associated with the design.”
INFO: Alternative Delivery Solutions LLC (adsllc@cox.net)