CU4201

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INDUSTRY focus Whatever happened to BIM Level 2? From the mid 1990's onwards, many research projects have concluded that the major problem impacting the delivery of construction projects is the failure in production of quality information. The lack of quality information and spatial coordination created an added cost to construction projects, estimated between 10-20%, and extended the time to delivery. Mervyn Richards and Paul Oakley, CEO of Oakley CAD Services Ltd, explore the issues The use of 3D modelling in the early 2000's was seen as a possible method of elminating waste and helping to deliver projects on time by reducing rework. Supplemented with standards, methods, and procedures, a possible method of working was published by the Construction Project Information Committee (CPIC), as Production Information: A code of procedure for the construction industry. First edition 2003. Prior to this publication, the procedures had been developed and tested within industry, initially on the BAA Heathrow Express, and subsequently the BAA Terminal 5 (T5) project. The standards were also implemented on a variety of projects, ranging from shopping centre development to standard office buildings. In all cases, the standards were shown to have a beneficial effect on the delivery of those projects. The benefits were accepted and further government funding, through AVANTI, demonstrated that if implemented properly, everybody in the supply chain - from client to designer, constructor, and operator - could reduce costs and improve profits. With final testing on the Crossrail project, the methods were developed and published as best practice by the British Standards Institute as BS1192-2007 and guidance was provided by BSI/CPI BIP2207. The major developments from these projects are known as the Common Data Environment and the File Naming Convention. A process for sharing information in a collaborative environment to eliminate the problems of spatial coordination and coordination of the data developed throughout the design and delivery process. The secondary requirement of the CDE was to enable the collection, management, and dissemination of shared information, or common data, and to provide an audit trail of the development activity. The latter was a requirement of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) resulting from the Heathrow Express collapse. It is a requirement that has never been fully implemented but is currently being reinforced following the Grenfell Tower disaster, and the Dame Judith Hackitt fire safety report into legislation to provide a 'golden thread' of audited data. In 2008, with the financial crash and the change in UK Government from Labour to Conservative, it was recognised that, to continue government delivery of centrally funded projects, new ways of delivery were needed, to allow for greater value and reduced cost. The concept of BIM Level 2 was conceived by Dr Mark Bew MBE and Prof. Mervyn Richards OBE. It was accepted by UKHMG as a game-changer. BS 1192 became the foundation for a set of standards under the 1192 series. These were based on the roadmap developed as part of the BIM Level 2 Maturity Diagram. The roadmap was agreed and published by the BSI B555 Committee to be delivered, prior to the UK BIM Mandate to be published in 2016. The strategy was published as part of the BIS BIM Strategy and the HMG Construction Strategy 2011, giving the industry 5 years to prepare. Guidance, education, training, and certification were made available to the industry through the BSI, the Building Research Establishment (BRE), and Lloyds Register (supported by Excitech Ltd). In addition, several Information Management courses and MSc degrees were also made available at UK universities, including Reading and London Middlesex. To ascertain the effects of the BIM Level 2 strategy, several government projects were used to measure the results. The results proved that the strategy and the guidance was successful, to such a degree that the international community wanted the standards to be converted to a series of ISO standards on information management. This requirement was granted and promoted by UKHMG and the BSI. This proved to be a major problem. The international members of the ISO committee did not want a UK standard, particularly when it came to conventions and codification and, during the development of ISO 19650-2, all 'UK-isms', such as the UK Government's strategy, BIM Level 2 and UK-specific references, etc., had to be removed with UK-specific definitions, instead, held in a National Annex. Source: www.thenbs.com/knowledge/from-bs- 1192-to-iso-19650-and-everything-inbetween However, requirements not relevant to information management were lost. This was somewhat ironic, as many of these requirements were fundamental in improving the quality of information - which was why the international community wanted to adopt the UK standards. In the original PAS1192-2 document, guidance and descriptions were given as notes, allowable under the British Standard PAS form of standards development. The ISO standard format does not allow for this, and so explanatory information is missing from the ISO 19650 documentation. BSI could have just included the updated and unpublished 2018 PAS1192-2 as the 24 January/February 2024
INDUSTRYfocus UK National Annex to 19650, but instead of taking this simple step, a whole new set of guidance documents on information management were produced by volunteers - an interpretation of the ISO 19650 requirements with quarterly updates over a period of years to get to the current release. The British Standards Institute, Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB) and UK BIM Alliance produced the documentation with multiple named authors for each section, published on the UK BIM Alliance website and adopted by the UK BIM Framework. This was seen as part of the delivery of BIM Level 2 and, as such, 'business as usual' - but nothing has really happened since. The original 1192 standards and the CDE processes were developed to ensure a clash-free set of information and fully coordinated data. However, it appears that the standards are not being implemented in the correct manner and the use of clash detection software, as an additional service, is being used as a matter of course. ISO 19650 does not support the BIM Mandate 2011-2016 and has removed all references to BIM maturity, as well as all 'UK-isms', such as the UK Government's strategy, BIM Level 2 and UK-specific references. New guidance documents were designed to address this problem, but fail to deal with some of the basic blockers to BIM adoption, such as Professional Indemnity, which impact on project delivery and information management. This was previously covered under the CIC Best Practice Guide for Professional Indemnity Insurance, when using BIM Level 2, but no new equivalent has been produced for ISO 19650. What was the rationale for the further development under the UK BIM Framework banner? Was it to satisfy the new IPA BIM Mandate, that the UK BIM Framework guidance versions were conceived? The continual updating and massaging of the requirements has created a major problem for the certifiers and educators, such as universities, in providing updates in this confusing environment. Dr Marzia Bolpagni, in her recent report Adoption of Bim-related International Standards Across Europe (2023), suggests that the standards are not being used as published, but are further interpretations by companies and individuals around the world. The UK may be the most prolific user of the standards, but even here there are numerous company and individual versions. It would seem from countless articles on BIM+, and specifically from John Ford research, that very few people and particularly clients understand their responsibilities in providing real requirements, and it is now almost impossible for a true BIM Execution Plan to be written from a tendering team. BIM Level 2 and the original requirements - to enable centrally funded government projects to be delivered on time or to cost - has not been achieved; in fact the opposite seems to have occurred. The promise of BIM Level 2 as business as usual, and the suggestion that ISO would enable a global standard to be delivered that would allow the UK to take advantage of winning more international projects, is now also a pipe dream. The removal of key requirements means international consensus cannot be achieved, authors fail to understand key concepts, and numerous National Annexes have been created. As a country the UK is in a new financial crisis, and we once more need to provide centrally funded projects more economically. Perhaps we need to look again at the simple requirements of the original standards and guidance for the UK to reduce cost and waste, identifying the needs of carbon reduction and once again boost productivity in the construction industry. Mervyn Richards OBE and Paul Oakley BA(Hons) Dip Arch RIBA © 2023 Mervyn Richards January/February 2024 25
Page 1: CAD User JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2024 VOL
Page 4 and 5: COMMENT Editor: David Chadwick (cad
Page 6 and 7: INDUSTRY news CALCULATING OUR ENVIR
Page 8 and 9: INDUSTRY news VECTORWORKS WINS GOOD
Page 10 and 11: EVENTpreview Futurebuild 2024: the
Page 12 and 13: TECHNOLOGY focus Supply Chain Manag
Page 14 and 15: TECHNOLOGYfocus enhance efficiency,
Page 16 and 17: TECHNOLOGYfocus The cost of going c
Page 18 and 19: CASEstudy Skipping ahead BIM softwa
Page 20 and 21: CASEstudy Leveraging AssetWise Clar
Page 22 and 23: CASEstudy Loch on wood Dylan Balisk
Page 26 and 27: TECHNOLOGY focus IDEA StatiCa Winne
Page 28 and 29: CASEstudy Meeting the BNG challenge
Page 30 and 31: TECHNOLOGY focus Gathering the evid
Page 32 and 33: YOUR GUIDE TO 5 7 3 1 2 21 22 23 24
Page 34 and 35: EVENT preview Cadventure launches i
Page 36: ARCHICAD COLLABORATE: ‘SCARY FAST

CU4201

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?