In Part 3 of David’s BIM Day Out presentation Partner and 5D Quantity Surveyor David Mitchell talks BIM Execution Plans, Contracting, and Applying the 5D QS Methodology https://youtu.be/hD3_voybM_U
This short video follows on from ‘What Skills does a 5D QS need?‘ (Part 1) and ‘What is a 5D QS’s Methodology?‘ (Part 2).
This talk is from BIM Day Out in Perth where they have more great BIM presentations over at BIMtv.
Partner and 5D Quantity Surveyor, David MitchellBIM Day Out event in Perth on “5D’s of Digital Design, Documentation and Delivery”.
In Part 2 David covers off on the 5D QS methodology. https://youtu.be/9seMRePr6jw
Click here to check out Part 1 – “What Skills does a 5D QS need?” and you can also view more great BIM video’s and presentations at the BIM Day Out’s website.
Be sure to sign up to the Mitchell Brandtman YouTube channel by clicking the red button below to be notified when Part 3, “Contracting & Applying the Methodology”, is released:
Partner and 5D Quantity Surveyor, David MitchellBIM Day Out event in Perth on “5D’s of Digital Design, Documentation and Delivery”.
In Part 1 David covers off on the skills that a 5D QS needs to not only create cost certainty but to also help deliver a successful project.http://youtu.be/ir3ybJt5rRs&w=512&h=308
David also contributed an article to BIMCrunch titled “5D BIM: What Skills does a 5D QS need?” which you can read here. You can also view more great BIM video’s and presentations at the BIM Day Out’s website.
Be sure to sign up to the Mitchell Brandtman Blog (by entering your email address in the box on the right hand side) and be notified as soon as the next part of the presentation is released, titled “What is a 5D QS’s Methodology?”.
For more information please feel free to email David direct.
Follow David and Mitchell Brandtman on Twitter
Late last month I attended ‘The Reveal’ – an announcement of the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct Design Competition. Mitchell Brandtman formed part of the Nikken Sekkei team, led by internationally renowned Architects Nikken Sekkei. Our team’s design scheme progressed into stage 2 of the competition in June this year, shortlisting us with only two other firms out of a total of 75 submissions from around the world.
We knew we had proposed a bold scheme – actually ‘bold and arresting’ in the organiser’s words – and that it would push traditional boundaries and thinking. It was strikingly different yet playful and inclusive. Very Gold Coast, we thought. And I must say that personally, it was some of the most unique and challenging cost planning that I have done in my career!
Here’s what the Jury had to say:
“Nikken Sekkei’s striking design reflected the æweb of water’ which defines both the Gold Coast and surrounds the cultural precinct site.
The web is incorporated, both dramatically and subtly, into the submission’s landscape and built forms. Most spectacularly, a grand æwater stage’, with dimensions of 195.9m x 195.9m, celebrates the founding year of the Gold Coast in 1959.
These twin references, of the city’s founding date and the ubiquitous presence of water û shimmering, flowing, falling û celebrate the site’s location and its coastal character.
Centrally located, the water stage links three landscape zones; nature park to the north, water front to the north east, and the civic field to the south west. A series of smaller landscapes are created as sub-divisions of these three primary zones, such as a rain forest, grass land, water garden and indigenous garden.Dual approaches from a Chevron Island green bridge deliver visitors either to ground-level or the elevated water stage.The five senses of sight, sound, touch, smell and taste are engaged across the site.
The water stage doubles as a multi-purpose performance venue and promenade, offering arresting views of the city skyline and hinterland. Depth of water is cleverly controlled, ranging from only a few centimetres deep to dry, providing opportunities for small and large performance spaces to emerge. It also mirrors a typical æQueenslander’ roof, offering protective shade to the central amphitheatre below.
Both the New Arts Museum, in the form of small, separated pods, and the Living Arts Centre are also partially nestled below the water stage.
In the Living Arts Centre the existing building is retained and enhanced, with two theatres connected by a shared stage accommodating up to 1800 people. At night, its wrapped fly tower, protruding through the water stage becomes a digital screen for outdoor cinema or illumination.
An holistic approach is taken to precinct programming, with the whole site treated as a museum. The covered amphitheatre provides opportunities for mixed programming, with potential for audience viewing both under and on top of the Water Stage”
Unfortunately our team’s scheme did not take out the top prize on the night however was held in high regard by the Jury and competition organisers. We are proud of the concept and how far our team got in the competition. It’s just such a shame that we all won’t be able to see this concept come to lifeà
Congratulations to the ARM Architecture team for their winning design.
For more information on the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct visit the website here: www.goldcoastculturalprecinct.info or feel free to email myself directly.
The BrisBIM End of Year Gathering took place last week at QUT’s ‘The Cube’ – a very fitting location that features one of the world’s largest digital interactive learning and display spaces – part science lab, part digital engagement.
Mitchell Brandtman’s 5D team went along and joined a host of 12 presenters talking for only 2 minutes about projects they had successfully completed. Perhaps “SpeedBIM” should have been theme of the evening?
Besides from the great results achieved on projects all around Australia a highlight came from Tom de Plater of Peddle Thorp Architects who talked about Autodesk’s ‘123D Catch’ software which is a free App that allows you to generate models from pictures using your phone or tablet.
If you’re wondering what’s going on in the pictures below that’s Associate & 5D Quantity Surveyor Matt Hemming checking this new software out – on himself!
Now to test it on something with cleaner geometry! https://youtu.be/OxsmnDKO7D0
We hope to see you at the next BrisBIM event on the 19th Feb 2014 – Put that date in your diary. See you there!
The second article in our Guest Blogger Series comes from Jennifer MacDonald.
Jennifer is a lecturer in Construction Management at the University of Technology, Sydney, and is currently completing a PhD in BIM and collaborative design education at the University of South Australia. She was involved in the survey and analysis work behind the BIM Economic Study and the National BIM Initiative, provided advice on the National Industry Education and Training (NIET) plan and served on the AIA BIM Education Working Group.
With partners at UniSA and Newcastle Uni, she recently completed work on an OLT-funded project to develop collaborative AEC curricula with the aid of BIM tools and processes. The results of this can be found on the codebim.com website, which Jennifer aims to develop further into a resource for all AEC academics. She hopes to improve the way the construction industry functions, one student at a time!
A striking feature of most of the government/client mandates for BIM around the world has been the requirement for Collaborative BIM. In the UK, the requirement is for ôfully collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data being electronic) as a minimum by 2016ö (equivalent to Maturity Level 2 on the ubiquitous ôBew-Richards diagramö). The National BIM Initiative in Australia (yet to get Federal approval but we can hope!) recommends a similar mandate to the UK’s. The US, preferring to use alternative jargon, has stated that ôimproved job-site efficiencyö will be achieved by ômore effective interfacing of people, processes, materials, equipment, and information.
The UK mandate, in particular, has had an energising effect on the uptake of BIM. However, being able to realise the promised efficiency savings relies more on people and process change than any technologies, and the industry is waking up to the fact it has some major cultural problems hindering progress, and that many of these problems originate in the education of our construction professionals.
Construction is a litigious, inefficient industry, with low levels of trust and poor information sharing. More money is used by many firms to resolve disputes than they invest in R&D. The temporary nature of construction teams, comprising members from many different organisations, with clear (and fiercely protected) demarcation lines between occupational roles, has contributed to the negative culture. This lack of trust does not encourage information sharing and collaboration. The construction industry has expressed a need for graduates skilled in collaborative building design and BIM, but, unfortunately, the silo-d culture extends down in to the segregated teaching of students of the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) disciplines.
I should probably enter a disclaimer here: I worked as a structural engineer for nearly ten years in industry in both the UK and Australia, before turning my hand to academia just over three years ago. I like to think, therefore, that I have seen both sides of the research vs. education vs. training debate and have some sympathies towards each side. The main reason I entered academia was that I felt I was bashing my head against the wall trying to make innovative suggestions for change in rather ôold-schoolö engineering companies, only to be ôput back in my boxö repeatedly. ôAh ha!ö I thought, ôAcademia will be a much more collegial place to work, and it will be easier to get collaboration going there! We can get students to learn how to work collaboratively before they get too set in their ways in industry!ö How na´ve was I ???! In fact, I soon realised, most Universities are far more silo-d places to work in than the worst construction teams in industry.
Demolishing the silosà.[Source: http://blog.zenoss.com/]
I am very lucky, however, on entering academia, to win an Office of Learning and Teaching Grant to support the development of collaborative AEC curricula, with the aid of BIM tools and processes. More details of this project can be found on my codebim.com website. The project has finished officially, but I am continuing to work on it as part of my PhD research work. I won’t bore you with the specifics of the PhD thesis, but the gist is that I have developed a framework (very originally entitled the IMAC framework) to assist academics in developing more collaborative curricula across architecture, engineering and construction. It’s currently being tested out on selected courses at UTS and the University of South Australia.
Unfortunately, the traditional silos of the AEC schools can be extremely difficult to bridge. As in industry, mistrust of the other professions also exists in academia. Perhaps surprisingly, for those of you who might believe (looking at our salaries) that academics are above such base concerns as getting hold of filthy lucre, questions can arise as to who is responsible for (and who will pay for) cross-disciplinary courses. The biggest roadblocks in the path of achieving true interdisciplinary education are conflicting student/faculty schedules and lack of compensation for more than one faculty member involved in a course. This problem occurs in universities all around the world. Bureaucracy is holding back progress as always.
Some other problems that need to be addressed in implementing more collaborative teaching practices enabled by BIM are:
Additionally, governments worldwide are demanding that universities prove their worth as education providers and research generators in order to secure further public funding. In Australia, one of the current ôthreatsö to Universities (apart from teaching and research funding being slashed and the Education Minister expressing his desire that the majority of the remaining funds should be diverted into medical research only) is that they will be ôdemotedö to teaching-only institutions, and no Vice Chancellor wants their university to suffer that ôindignityö. The old mantra of ôpublish or perishö rings as true today as ever. As one academic put it, ôthe work [our] faculty do in the classroom is at once…the most important part of their duties and the part for which they receive the least public recognitionö.
I have frequently heard the refrain ôwe’re not teaching students to press buttonsö being used among educators who believe that BIM is just another CAD tool. The most frightening conversation I’ve had where this statement was made was one senior engineering professor asking ôso does this CAD package run on PCsàor does it need a mainframe?ö Oh yes, he actually thought industry still uses mainframe computers (quite apart from not grasping the point I was trying to make that BIM is not CAD)! Anyway, the argument is at the heart of the ôeducation vs. trainingö debate (and subsequent resistance to teaching ôcomputer technologiesö), where many academics believe that university is for educating (teaching students about theory and critical thinking) and that training can be left up to industry upon graduation. Many AEC educators are unfamiliar with BIM tools and, if they are used at all within courses, educators currently expect students to learn it by themselves, as they do many other software applications. This default approach to learning BIM means students will not develop an understanding of how BIM tools enable them to work effectively with others in a collaborative environment.
The argument also misses the point that BIM is not merely a new CAD tool or computer application: it is a new paradigm and its benefits extend much further than mere visualisation. From an educational point of view, there is little difference between learning manual drafting techniques and learning 2D CAD. However, BIM provides opportunities to model every part of the design and construction process and can allow multiple design proposals to be compared and building performance to be modelled…we simply represent a building with CAD, whereas we construct in BIM. The logic (and understanding) of construction processes and methods under the ôBIMö banner has enormous potential for enhancing the education of our AEC professionals.
My IMAC framework recognises that students need an understanding of the basics of their own disciplines, together with knowledge of effective teamworking practices, and technical understanding of the software tools most relevant to their own discipline, to be able to work effectively on collaborative BIM projects with the other disciplines. Thus, in the early stages, BIM, teamworking and discipline concepts are introduced, culminating in senior-year level IPD studio style classes, replicating real world multi-disciplinary design and construction projects. The aim is to create ôT-shapedö graduates who have breadth of knowledge across the disciplines and deep knowledge of their own. The framework focuses on undergraduate level education, but aspects can be adapted for graduate, TAFE and CPD education too.
One stand-out course worldwide is the Pennsylvania State University’s Architectural Engineering Program, whose students collaborate in multi-disciplinary teams with students from architecture and landscape architecture. This course has won several industry awards, including at least two AIA TAP BIM awards. I had the privilege of visiting Penn State in January, and it was amazing to see the investment in technology and teaching underway there. They have a ôBIM Caveö room with three ôwrap aroundö 3D stereo-projection screens and a SMARTboard for students to collaborate and present their work on. They have also developed a BIM-based construction simulation game (that has built in training lag time for new site workers and adverse weather conditions thrown in etc.) so that students can play around with being site superintendents in a safe environment. Other US programs I visited that are doing great things in the BIM sphere are Colorado State University, Auburn University and the University of Southern California, but Penn State appears to have been the only one to have effectively bridged the 3-discipline divides so far. All the Universities visited, however, have the benefit of having a maximum of 25 students per class. We (both industry and academia) really need to ask ourselves if the typical Australian undergraduate format (particularly in Engineering and Construction Management courses) of packing 90+ students in to a lecture theatre for 3 hours once a week is really going to produce graduates with the skills we want. In the era of MOOCs (massive open online courses), students are also going to start asking why they should be shelling out thousands of dollars to receive the same kind of transmission-style teaching they would receive online for very little cost.
A Penn State Student in action in the BIM Cave [Source: Autodesk BIMCurriculum awards]
Other notable training developments in BIM are the AGC (American General Contractors) BIM course for contractors, and RICS is starting up a BIM accreditation scheme in the UK. The AIA in Australia set up a BIM and Education working group, which has published some preliminary ideas, and the Australian National BIM Initiative makes multi-disciplinary BIM education one of its six key priority targets for assistance. The BIM Task Group in the UK is developing a BIM Learning Outcomes Framework, the aim of which is to produce a standardised BIM curricula for all UK Universities to follow. Luckily for me, I see this as being complementary to my own framework, rather than in competition û the BIM Learning Outcomes Framework specifies particular learning outcomes, whereas my framework suggests how they can be taught by modifying existing courses. Being able to tweak existing courses is important as it gets around the issue of what to leave out if introducing a new course to an overstuffed existing curriculum, and it also expedites change when a new course can take a minimum of 2 years to get from idea to inclusion on the timetable.
To sum up, the current shortage of professionals trained in BIM remains a barrier to the adoption of BIM and collaborative working practices in the industry but universities, industry bodies and other training providers are taking notice. The change to BIM from 2D or 3D CAD is a much bigger leap than was the move from drawing boards to 2D CAD. It requires not only the learning of the new technology/software, but also the learning of a new working culture and the ôun-learningö of old habits and ways of working. BIM requires practitioners to rethink the ways in which they develop designs and manage construction projects. There is a great opportunity for educators to train undergraduates in the use of BIM and the concepts of collaborative design, before they learn about the ôold waysö of working in the industry. These new graduates are likely to have a profound effect on the industry and to lead the charge in adopting BIM and developing innovative approaches to working practices. We just need a bit of support and understanding between academia and industryàas the song says ôcome on, come onàlet’s work togetherö!*
See my website codebim.com for more information on points discussed in this article.
References
*Lyrics from ôLet’s Work Togetherö by Canned Heat (Lyrics by Wilbert Harrison)
David looks at the pressures that globalisation brings to the skills of the 5D Quantity Surveyor and the need to up-skill our profession to effectively compete to create cost certainty and deliver leaner and better buildings.
Julie Jupp (Coordinator of the Digital Technologies stream in the BA Construction Project Management at University of Technology, Sydney) also talks about her vision for education to enable greater collaboration within industry to better ready students for the practical applications of BIM as a methodology.
While Rick Best (Discipline Leader for Construction Management and Quantity Surveying at Bond University, Gold Coast) addresses the need for the development of standard BIM content whilst continuing to establish programmes which bring industry and students together.
Last Friday saw the Mitchell Brandtman 5D Cost Planning team nominated for the ‘Consultant Excellence Award’ at the UDIA (Qld) 2013 Awards for Excellence.
A big congratulations goes to the whole MB 5D Cost Planning team who worked on the Sunshine Coast Public University Hospital with the Lend Lease team on industry changing work for which they were nominated. Although they didn’t take home the award on the night they did extremely well in becoming finalists and achieving fantastic results on the project.
The $1.8 billion Sunshine Coast Public University Hospital is due to open late 2016 with approximately 450 inpatient beds and further adding another 288 by 2021. Mitchell Brandtman consulted to Lend Lease to provide innovative 5D quantity surveying throughout the procurement phase of Queensland’s first hospital public private partnership.
Mitchell Brandtman brought an understanding of 3D digital technologies, providing model validation and quantity measurements through the use of federated 3D models. Rather than providing a one-off product, Mitchell Brandtman mobilised a specialist team to the Lend Lease office, led by Associate & 5D Quantity Surveyor Matt Hemming, to work collaboratively with the Cost Planning & Procurement Lend Lease team with an aim of both adding value and providing on-the-job training and knowledge sharing in a time frame of 4 weeks.
Direct benefits included a significant reduction in time and cost, and access to real time information for decision making. Indirect benefits came from increased knowledge, identification clashes in the design phase, and the ability to engage with contractors and subcontractor trades to provide certainty throughout the tender process.
Mitchell Brandtman’s experience in working with Building Information Modelling (BIM) spans 20 years. Our skilled 5DQS team continually develops improvements within the technology that bring about greater efficiencies and cost certainty to our projects. Our collaboration with Lend Lease has meant that we were able to implement a new process that provides one 3D digital model incorporating all aspects of the architectural design and engineering including structural, mechanical, electrical and hydraulic components of the building.
For more information please click here to see the award submission which highlights the skills, process and results achieved or visit our Projects page.
For more information please feel free to email Matt Hemming direct or call Mitchell Brandtman on 1800 454 434.
The first in our Guest Blogger Series comes from Brett Taylor, Director of Bornhorst + Ward.Brett has been the Director in charge of Bornhorst & Ward’s successful implementation of Revit. With 8 years of personal hands on use of Revit he has a vast level of experience to share. Bornhorst & Ward have fully documented 100% of their projects using Revit since the start of 2007.
He has worked on many projects where Revit has been utilised in an integrated approach to design modelling. These projects include The Village at Coorparoo, Regent Office Building, G40 Griffith Health Centre & Ergon Office Building Townsville. He has spent many hours collaborating with clients, fellow consultants, contractors and sub-contractors to develop the BIM workflow, integrated modelling approach that has enabled the successful delivery of many projects…
For the last 8 years the team at Bornhorst & Ward have been working in the Virtual Design World to improve our work processes utilising 3D models to change how we go about delivering our civil and structural engineering services.
Since the start of 2007 we have fully documented all of our structural projects in 3D using Autodesk’s Revit software. We also link our Revit models to our design software programs. So where it took 2 weeks to create an analysis model we can obtain accurate building deflections, refer figure1, and load rundowns in a fraction of the time. This process has helped obtain more accurate structural sizing earlier in a project and enabled us to look at engineered options to develop the best solution for projects. Which helps reduce risk on the project!
Figure 1 – Deflection Plot of a typical Residential Project
The key to Virtual Modelling is to store information in the model which can be accessed by project team members to avoid duplication of information and elements within the model. We have been storing information in our models that has been used by our co-consultants. Information like concrete strengths, reinforcement rates, steel finishes & QSID. This has enabled our co-consultants like Quantity Surveyors and Steel Detailers to use our models and the information contained in them to speed up the workflow, improve accuracy and save building costs.
A good example is the steel shop detailing process. It is still common today that the following process occurs:-
Current projects go from a 3D engineering model to 2D drawings (produced by the design consultant), then a new 3D model is created to then create 2D shop drawings (by the steel detailer). The Building is then constructed. How smart is that!
The technology is currently available where 3D models can be transferred and utilised by all parties, including the fabricator in the steel factory and the builder on site. Which means 2D drawings are not necessarily required. That way anyone who views the 3D model can see the whole building, not just what is shown on the plans or sections which have been created.
We have been working with Phil Shanks at Jackson Roxborough Steel Detailers for a number of years to refine the workflow of transferring the 3D models between our offices and between the software that we both use. We can now overlay models to find any differences between the two models and the information contained in the models.
A good example of this is shown in Figure 2 below
Figure 2
The yellow screw pile in the shop detailer’s model doesn’t line up with the white screw pile that was in the engineering model. A late change to the pile location was required and made to the engineering model after the model was exchanged. This was quickly picked up when the models were checked. There was a fair chance that if 2D shop models were reviewed this issue would not have been identified and the steelwork would have needed adjusting on site causing cost and time issues.
The above examples are just small structural engineering stories from the whole building workflow but they a replicated throughout offices of companies which embraced change and are working in the Virtual Design environment. It is not a quick process to change workflows but it worth the effort as the time and cost benefits to our company, people we work with and our projects have been enormous.
Not only have we identified substantial time & cost benefits. Our project partners including the ultimate project cost have achieved time & cost savings.
I sat in a meeting recently where the UK government’s strategy for BIM implementation was explained. They had some simple objectives and requirements, a couple being
On a recent pilot project they advised that the 20% capital cost reduction was nearly achieved. This then drove a change in the objective where they are now aiming for 33% cost saving in the construction costs of a project by 2025.
So where do we sit here in Australia? Well our government recently declined a request from the Building Smart organisation for funding to develop Australian Standards in BIM adoption and implementation. So it looks like it won’t just be Cricket & Rugby where the Poms are going to smash us!
It appears our government isn’t going to provide leadership. Therefore private enterprise will need to keep punching above our weight to achieve the efficiencies our construction industry needs to stay competitive globally.
There are many organisations who are extremely competent in the Virtual Design world and are providing benefits to the construction industry. If you are being told that BIM and Virtual Modelling is going to cost you more money and take longer then you are taking advice from inexperienced operators. If you aren’t walking through your proposed building using your ipad or computer you haven’t got the right design team on your project. If your builder isn’t showing you how they are going to construct your building and manage the subcontractors using a virtual building model you have the wrong builder!
If your company wishes to discuss this further and to find out how you can achieve the 20% saving that the Poms have achieved on your next Building Project please contact Brett Taylor at Bornhorst & Ward b.taylor@bornhorstward.com.au
Following on from my recent blog post about the latest release of BIMForum’s LOD Spec which defines what it is that you’re designing and the LOD of the model, I have come across 2 recently released documents which further aid consultants in setting out who does what and at what stage of the project û as well incorporating the LOD at these different stages.
The US Army Corp of Engineers æBIM Minimum Modeling Matrix’ enables a project-specific plan to be developed with input from the client. The æScope-LOD-Grade’ worksheet allows you to modify æProject Scope’ columns based on what elements are included in that scope. Furthermore you can define at which LOD they will be delivered, the way in which this information will be exchanged and who they will be delivered by.
Similarly, the Royal Institute of British Architects have recently released their æPlan of Work’ document which contains a æDesign Responsibility Matrix’ that allows you to consider the roles that are required at each stage of a project and who is best placed to undertake them, along with the core decisions on how and when each team will be engaged through the 7 project phases (1. Preparation and brief, 2. Concept design, 3. Developed Design, 4. Technical Design, 5. Construction, 6. Handover and Close Out, 7. In Use).
Both documents are simple and adaptable that once completed provide you with clear information that is presented in a way that all teams within the project can comprehend. From a consultants perspective these tools are useful to define what you are offering when you do a fee quotation. Additionally, from a project level, they’re extremely useful to manage the teams that are involved at the project at different times and project phases and for different deliverables.
For more information please feel free to email me direct or contact me at Mitchell Brandtman, 61 7 3327 5000,
