The release of ACIF and APCC’s document æA Framework for the Adoption of Project Team Integration & BIM‘ in early December last year gave us a solid background of the BIM landscape in Australia and New Zealand, pointing out the problems and challenges within industry, ie. government agenda versus supplier agenda. However what it lacked were solutions for whole of industry to progress BIM take up and a meaningful commitment to change the way we work on a large scale in Australia.

On the 26th June 2015, the ACIF and APCC jointly released their most recent companion document to the Framework, entitled ôBuilding and Construction Procurement Guide: Project Team Integration and Building Information Modelling (BIM)ö. The aim of the guide is to assist industry stakeholders in their adoption and implementation of PTI and BIM through comprehensive instructions and guiding principles for each procurement model, how to tender and select the right BIM team and how to manage the project using BIM at the outset.

Where’s the Industry Incentive?

The Procurement Guide addresses many of the standard questions that clients and project teams, with limited BIM knowledge, are looking for, via a step by step and encyclopaedia-like format.

The guide provides some considerations for project team collaboration and how BIM impacts this process across the different delivery models. What’s needed however, particularly in relation to scheduling of contributions is a change in the methodology, where construction can be rehearsed over and over i.e brief, act, debrief, brief, act, debrief etc. The current process undervalues this opportunity and briefing documents continue to involve maps, models and explaining the plan rather than opportunities to test virtually and revisit and re-brief prior to physical construction.

Leadership is also a key component that is missing in the BIM campaign to improve building projects in Australia.

Peter Barda, Executive Director for ACIF, who facilitated the accompanying webinar that launched the guide, highlighted the fact that governments have been slow to adopt BIM as a tool and the reluctance may stem from a need to see some completed BIM projects to demonstrate the benefits. Teresa Scott, Executive Director for APCC concurred that governments are reluctant to push BIM onto contractors and are looking for the industry to demonstrate its BIM readiness.

Peter Barda advised that ACIF will shortly be approaching all jurisdictions around Australia with a plan to phase in BIM as part of a longer term opportunity to mandate BIM for projects over a given value. ACIF is keen to work with University and the Vocational Education and Training sectors to ôturn outö people who are appropriately skilled to use BIM and who understand how to use the integration process.

The guide doesn’t focus enough on the true benefits of BIM in terms of relationship management throughout a project. Peter Barda did however close the webinar by focusing on BIM success not being about 3D design but being very much about harnessing project team integration and around all consultants, trade contractors and project sponsors having a role in ôdeciding if BIM is useful or not and deciding how well the team is put together and managed.ö

Until, as an industry, we get this depth of understanding across all jurisdictions and the training to support it we cannot achieve better team work through BIM. A project based industry must do things that benefit the project.

Champions of BIM:

The guide alone will not make the impact on industry that is needed to push Australia towards a BIM ready environment. What is clear from this most recent guide release is that until companies can see the immediate personal benefit for committing to BIM as a technology resource û take up here will continue to be slow unless mandated. And this is the problem û the vicious cycle. Industry is busy, there is a lot of work going on, and approvals are at an all-time high.

Countries that are mandating BIM are upskilling their workforce at a significant rate û a workforce that is now eyeing up overseas opportunities. Competition in this space will become fierce and local Australian companies will not be ready or capable to react because of a lack of action today that leverages our high labour costs. Perhaps this is where the Government needs to take the lead to recognise that the industry is BIM ready and capable and to provide that stimulus for Australian companies to invest in the technology to sustain our local industry in 10, 20 and 30 years. This will at the very least put us on an equal footing with those shaping global construction.

We look forward to ACIF’s round of consultations with industry in late July and early August on the development of their Education & Training Skills Sets. This will be a good next step and welcome addition to BIM readiness in Australia.

For more information please email me direct at dmitchell@mitbrand.com

Over the last decade we have been involved significantly in the development of BIM and how the 5D QS contributes to that process. We have invested heavily in industry collaboration and, at a firm level, in the enabling technology and upskilling our team to 5D QS.

Out of all of this investment and research the single most important element in relation to the 5D QS contribution to BIM is revisioning because it enables living cost planning – the ability to estimate something that is based on current design.

In Real Time:

The biggest problem with creating and managing a bill of quantities (BoQ) or any form of quantities is that the day that the quantities are finished they are out of date. For a BoQ this could be by one to two months on average and sometimes a lot more. This is because the design documents are frozen for a period to allow preparation of the quantities. In the case of a detailed set of quantities like a BoQ it is not cost or time effective to redo the BoQ at regular intervals and on large projects, plans to remeasure the BoQ often fail because it is not possible to complete the task within a timeframe that is useful. Historically it has always been expected that a BoQ has a life equal to the project but the reality is that the BoQ was out of date the day it was released and it was never going to be accurate at any point in the build. Without revisioning a BoQ’s main purpose is to provide a consistent tender at that point in time and not an accurate cost estimate that could be relied upon throughout.

This is no longer an acceptable parameter.

5D and BIM make it entirely possible to revision a model at any stage and across any element of a design û before (for cost planning, Quantity take off (QTO) and BoQ), during (for end cost forecasting and valuation of variations) and after completion (for maintenance and replacement cost estimating) if the cost data has been dynamically linked to the model information as part of the BIM Execution Plan.

The ability to revision something and make it current is happening now on a whole range of projects. This same technique is used not just for quantity takeoff but for living cost planning and to reconcile each cost plan or value variations or even value progress payments.

This one technique of revisioning benefits the entire downstream project team and is changing the role of the QS dramatically, which is bizarre, when you consider that the most significant change (in the QS profession as a whole) that I have seen during my 32 year career was the industry wide adoption of excel.

Technology is the Enabler û 5D QS the Driver

Technology is the tool that supports the BIM and is available now. It is the 5D QS committed to the technology and how it benefits BIM that drives revisioning and what it can bring to a project at any stage. CostX is one of the tools that revisions well and allows the 5D QS to look through a model and compare it to one that we had previously measured. It doesn’t matter whether we measured it yesterday or whether we measured it a year ago, we can still compare it.

Being able to recalculate something quickly and over and over and over is a very powerful resource in saving the project time and money. It is however, still misunderstood across industry because historically quantities and estimates are only called for at the project sign-off times. It is something that is known to be done once not over and over.

Upon compiling the quantities of a project through CostX any form of quantification or estimate can be created quickly and reconciled via a report that describes each quantity change.

That one simple task can be applied the whole way through a project. This notion of ôI want quantities I can rely uponö û becomes very apparent and achievable. It’s the single point of change in a QS tool kit today.

Mapping

So what is it that enables us to do this? In relation to CostX, mapping is king. Our industry talks a lot about the need for a standard classification system. CostX doesn’t rely on classifications.

All the parameters within an element in the design can be mapped almost like a Google search – ôspideredö through the design. This allows us to query a model for the information that we need rather than having someone classify it for us and tell us where it should be. It puts the control in the hands of the user, allowing us to interrogate the model data and establish clear parameters for that data in preparation for design changes to come.

This also means that mapping of the model data can begin at any stage û it’s never too late although there are significant benefits in applying mapping at the start of a project so that the data can build throughout the design stages. The design team can make decisions on current information at key points in the design development without compromising the integrity of the design.

Mapping effectively develops layers of information at each design change. Too much information at the beginning of the process and it would actually prohibit the design from developing. This is a technique that a 5D QS brings to the design team early on, knowing the key parameters in the data that will build the map most effectively and benefit everyone downstream.

Without revisioning it’s just not 5D

Appointing a QS needs to move away from whether you need a 2D or 5D estimate and start thinking in terms of what information is needed at the current stage of the design and how it can help as the design develops. Ideally the 5D QS should be involved at concept design. Whilst not much information is needed within this stage it provides the opportunity to set the master map and build the layers from there for fast and efficient revisioning at any time later in the design and build.

To be successful, projects must have a BIM Execution Plan which defines what the 5D QS requirements are. Designers need to model the way projects are built and bring all consultants into the design early. This is where decisions are made and efficiencies and cost savings are most likely identified and achieved. It’s important to work with people who know what they are doing and can demonstrate their value.

Early project team collaboration means fewer variations, delays and disruptions during the construction. The BIM Execution Plan delivers on collaboration and allows for the full power of revisioning downstream. It you’re not revisioning then you are missing the biggest opportunity that 5D brings to building leaner whilst maintaining design integrity and delivering the project’s vision intact.

For more information please email me direct at dmitchell@mitbrand.com

Creating certainty in the construction process is now directly impacting on the roles of the contractor and sub-contractor within a build. Technology is focusing the mind of the trades and services from doing something efficiently to creating greater productivity and thus positioning themselves to be involved in the design process much earlier. As a result we appear to be on the cusp of a shift in the status of who drives the design û should it be the services contractor?

Path to Prefabrication

The initial formal signs of change in the services sector of construction in the US date back to early 2002 and are defined by the research conducted by the Mechanical Contracting Education and Research Foundation. Their industry analysis of the opportunities and threats to members culminated in the publication of the report entitled ôFive Key Trends for the Future of the Mechanical Contracting Industryö, published in March 2005.

It was within this research that the question was asked of the mechanical contractors industry ôwhy does it seem like I am doing the work of the General Contractor without the pay?ö. The research focused clearly on the emerging technologies and the opportunities they presented to the trades in relation to developing closer relationships with the design process in order to improve productivity and reduce costs.

The report establishes a timeline of industry change where the mechanical and electrical contractors have a real opportunity to lead project design by 2020. It may however be much earlier than predicted given the current pace of prefabrication and the development of the ôframeö of services that are built off site, something which is changing the entire nature of subcontracting services.

The report also clearly advocates a move towards reverse tendering, something that Mitchell Brandtman canvasses as an innovative procurement technique and a direct outcome of setting the cost strategy at the concept and design phases. The result is an executable file that becomes the project’s living cost plan and provides all the elements to set a firm pricing schedule for the project. In non-competitive markets, reverse tendering reduces risk, expedites and simplifies the tender process by placing the focus on rates rather than the uncertainty that can manifest through tender or auction.

Future Form – Permanent Modular Construction

Much more recently industry organisations are focusing attention on how quickly prefabrication is changing and we are already moving towards permanent modular construction as a viable build option in large scale commercial projects.

In the US the Modular Building Institute, who represent more than 250 companies operating in 15 countries, are championing the development of permanent structures offsite in a safe environment that are being delivered to site, integrated with less waste and greater quality control. Some industry commentators are citing that building lifespans of more than 50 years are achievable.

Whilst prefabrication is clearly not a new concept, product improvement and increased demand have brought it back into the spotlight. Currently the key saving is time; however improvements in technology and large scale manufacturing will also lead to cost reductions.

When McGraw Hill released its ôSmartMarket Report: Prefabrication and Modularizationö in 2011, it specifically recognised the re-emergence of prefabrication and modularized components and how BIM technology was enabling their greater integration. Of the 800 architecture, engineering and contracting (AEC) professionals surveyed, more than two thirds reported significant productivity gains, including:

• 66% reporting that project schedules are decreased – 35% by four weeks or more
• 65% reporting that project budgets are decreased – 41% by 6% or more
• 77% reporting that construction site waste is decreased – 44% by 5% or more

Prefabrication and modularization not only has the ability to enable trends, such as BIM, but it also becomes more prominent because of these technologies. By bringing multiple innovative technologies and processes together it improves productivity in the industry by implementing different systems to achieve the desired outcomes, rather than simply speeding up the same myopic process which will not achieve true productivity gains in the long term.

The highly acclaimed T30 Hotel in China is an example of this and continues to steal headlines for its success in modular construction. The building was erected in just 15 days with over 90% of construction taking place in manufacturing sites, streamlining processes that removed impractical and tedious tasks and resulted in impressive eco-credentials. Whilst it may be some time before Australia embraces this level of engineering in prefabrication , Mitchell Brandtman is working closely with a number of the key players in the modular and prefabricated industry to develop new products.

Expanding the Scope and Blurring the Boundaries for Subcontracts

The trend toward prefabrication of building components has the potential to blur or change the traditional subcontract boundaries entirely here in Australia. BIM is already enabling prefabrication of services racks in corridors and risers. These racks are being fabricated by the mechanical services subcontractor who is allowing the space for electrical, hydraulic and fire services to be installed by those subcontractors in the mechanical subcontractor’s workshop. The other services subcontractors are then charged for the benefit that has been created for them.

In the US it’s a slightly different experience where the mechanical subcontractor is using his own plumbing and electrical staff to complete the work that was traditionally done by other subcontractors. In effect US mechanical subcontractors have expanded their traditional scope to include multi services within building trunk zones and this trend has reduced the scope of the electrical, fire and hydraulic packages.

It will be interesting to see if the US approach becomes the norm in Australia. At a time when our balance of trade figures are already heavily skewed by imported consumer goods in Australia, utilizing local innovation and technology can produce a highly valued product that will be more cost-effective and adaptive to our needs than one mass produced off-shore and sent by ship.

For more information please email me direct and follow Mitchell Brandtman and myself on Twitter:

For more than six months, the Productivity Commission has been charged with reviewing how major public infrastructure can be financed and managed given significant and measurable issues of high costs and long lead times surrounding these types of Government projects. It is hoped that with the large number of stakeholders with a vested interest in the outcome, the final report, due to be presented to the Federal Government on 27th May, is likely to feature collaboration as the centrepiece for reform and technology as the catalyst.

Being productive is not just about being efficient

Doing something more efficiently is not as effective as innovating a process or technique that results in doing something in a completely different way. The invention of the blue banger hangers is a classic example of innovative thinking changing an entire process and creating increased productivity opportunities industry wide. The current onset of prefabrication across construction sites of a number of building elements, materials and wholesale mechanical and electrical sections of a build are also increasing evidence of the productivity gains available on a project.

Governments can be particularly successful in developing wide spread efficiencies in processes and workflows during times of cost cutting and calls for greater accountability of the public purse. This often manifests as a squeezing of labour costs where someone is willing to do something faster so that there are less people involved in the process. However the process itself may remain unchanged and may continue to be unproductive.

In its draft report released in March, the Productivity Commission clearly outlines the opportunity to improve public infrastructure tender processes, recognising that for large and complex projects bidding costs can be as much as 1% of the project’s value.

Making the procurement process more efficient (i.e. formal consultation, stringent tender guidelines, uniform documentation and policies designed to award the lowest price) does not necessarily equate to productivity gains. The process may be more efficient but the outcome may still translate to higher turn-out costs at the end of the project.

Often within a rigid and efficiently applied tendering process it is innovative concepts that are annexed or removed from the bidding process altogether under the policy of ônon-conforming tenderö. This also removes any opportunity to generate productivity which is often the outcome of innovation. The Commission points directly to the need for change in the bid process and for it to recognise and remunerate innovation even where the tenderer is not the preferred bidder. It also points to a need to distinguish between an initial tender process focussed on cost and working with preferred tenders at a much more developed level.

It is this level of innovation that the Productivity Commission report should focus on in developing bid processes that bring about a high level of innovative change from industry providers.

Official call for coordinated approach

The Commission’s draft report galvanises global calls for certainty in construction. Much of the discussion continues to focus on creating certainty of the information and the data through collaboration.

The March report cites evidence of poor project management that results in unacceptably high project variations. Poor scoping and initial cost estimates directly contribute to cost overruns and variations.

We, as informed and engaged BIM advocates, know this and preach to the unconverted one project at a time. Very recently Mitchell Brandtman was involved in a residential project where we applied the 5D process to reverse tender and obtain a builders price with just one builder that was within 2.0% of our initial estimate. This is the level of certainty that can now be attained with the application of the 5D technology and collaboration that is a foundation for successful BIM.

There is a clear understanding within the Commission’s draft report that certainty reduces risk and in turn reduces costs. Certainty is recognised as being created through model data validation and collaboration but the report only references the BIM benefits for projects of a ôsufficient complexityö. It needs to go much further in its assessment as it doesn’t seem to recognise the ability to achieve certainty for any size project at any stage in the design process. The public consultation process which included (3) public hearings and resulted in the receipt of 205 submissions from industry and interested parties, may see a better and more informed recognition of the process improvements BIM brings across an entire project life cycle for a $1M build or a $180M build and anywhere in between.

BIM mandate inevitable for productivity goals

BIM is an innovation that changes both the process and the technique of the way we do things. It means that we can reduce the steps in the process and make the model certain earlier through collaboration to bring about innovative opportunities for the construction which produces better buildings for a lower cost.

So, is the report to Government on 27th May going to tell us anything new? It is unlikely that the report will shine a light on anything surprising for those at a more developed stage of BIM implementation. However it may be that the report provides the official collection of all the research and the data analysis in order to make far reaching and progressive steps in Australia to bring about a change to project management to improve productivity through BIM and mandate this change for Government projects nationally.

The draft report makes it very clear that reforms can begin immediately and can realise economic benefits in the short term. This says that if we do anything rather than what we are doing now we are most likely to be better off. The call for a national approach will add an even greater weight to the opportunities for productivity gains across the supply chain for construction in Australia and for BIM to take the lead role.

In 2012, Exemplar Health (comprising Lend Lease, Spotless Group, Capella Capital and Siemens) was successful in their bid to design, build, finance and maintain the new Sunshine Coast Public University Hospital – a $1.8 billion public tertiary teaching hospital.

In early 2013 a group of our 5D Quantity Surveyors at Mitchell Brandtman were engaged by Lend Lease to advise the benefits Building Information Modeling (BIM) could provide to the procurement and construction of the hospital project. The 5DQS team collaborated with the Lend Lease Cost Planning and Procurement team working alongside them for an initial period of four weeks.

For the first time in Australia on a project of this scale, the project team achieved efficient and effective real-time quantification and costing of revisions to deliver the final Trade Bill of Quantities that incorporated all design changes.

Real Time Revisioning

The Sunshine Coast Public University Hospital is Queensland’s first health Public Private Partnership (PPP) project and will be built to a 4 star green star rating. The first stage will be completed in 2016.

In a time frame of four weeks, the small collaborative team undertook a process of model validation, mapping, and revisioning on Stage One. This included measuring over 60,000m│ concrete, 800t post tensioning, 4,500t steel reinforcement and 200,000m▓ of formwork for a 150,000 m▓ hospital and a 95,000m▓ carpark.

Mobilising the 5DQS team within the Lend Lease offices has produced a fast track training programme with specialists working alongside and one on one with the in-house team and significantly accelerating their learning curve.

During the four weeks of the cost planning process the hospital’s 3D models were continually revised by the designers. The 5DQS team’s technology that interfaces with 3D models was able to accurately calculate quantities and create dynamic links between Revit« and IFC model information, rate libraries and estimate/trade bill of quantity templates. The dynamic links meant that the quantities and estimates were able to be calculated and recalculated every time the model information was revised.

By working with incomplete models throughout the design phase the model reliance increases and the 5DQS can be confident of the completeness and correctness of each model as the design develops. For designers this means there are no bad models and we can continually improve the BIM. For clients and project partners it creates even more efficiencies and reliability within the contract documents.

Tendering on the latest documents

The benefits of this approach have allowed Lend Lease to solve one of the industry’s pressing issues, the desire to tender on the latest documents still being worked on while Bills of Quantities are prepared. By creating reliable links between the Bills of Quantities and the model, tenderers can quickly understand the scope of a trade package, derisking the package and allowing for more competitive pricing. The effectiveness of applying a 5D methodology meant that the team were able to revision within days and sometimes hours to produce updated visualised documentation which clearly identified the changes within the 3D model and quickly include them in the contract.

When tender packages were released, subcontractors were provided with a free CostX« viewer containing the most recent Bill of Quantities and 3D model. The subcontractors could view each trade package quantity, where it is located in the model and how the quantity is measured. This technology reduces the reliance on 2D paper drawings and gives subcontractors an opportunity to better understand their tender requirements, easily visualise their components of the project and quickly respond to any revisioning.

Model Hospital

The progression of technology in the industry means companies need to quickly adapt the more traditional approach to design and construction.

What is clear from the approach taken at the first stage of the Sunshine Coast Public University Hospital project is that a collaborative project team which applies the BIM methodology at the outset can be assured of better coordination of documents, increasing the reliability and value of the information and the savings able to be generated. It can provide significant reductions in time and cost, and access to real time information for decision making. Indirect benefits come from increased knowledge, identification of clashes in the design phase and the ability to engage with contractors and subcontractors to provide certainty.

To read more about our work on this project please read this case study article: ‘Mitchell Brandtman and Lend Lease finalists at UDIA Consultant Excellence Awards’

Different stakeholders use the ‘Information’ in Building Information Modeling (BIM) for different purposes and last weeks panel discussion hosted by Consult Australia was a good opportunity to hear frank discussions from different stakeholders about how and why they use BIM. The panel discussion at the ‘BIM for Asset Owners’ event was chaired by Partner & 5D Quantity Surveyor, David Mitchell, and included; Bob Baird (Executive Director at Department of Defence), Paul Nunn (Senior BIM Consultant at CSI Global) and Brett Taylor (Director at Bornhorst and Ward).

What I got from this is that from an asset owner’s perspective, the focus isn’t necessarily on the model itself but the information that is contained within the model.

Bob Baird, Executive Director of CFPC, Capital Facilities Branch, Infrastructure Division, Department of Defence has been an advocate of integrating BIM into Department of Defence Assets and sees a real benefit in managing data they require for Facilities Management (FM) from a building model.

Defence runs 25,000 separate assets and we’re probably the largest land owner in Australia and it’s all about information. I find when we talk BIM the focus is on the M for Model but the real focus should be on the I part, for information, with the M to be Management.

But what information do owners require?

Is it something that consultants have an understanding of when they start their design? Brett Taylor, Director, Bornhorst & Ward has been a key driver in their companies implementation of BIM and moving their company to the use of REVIT as their authoring tool for all projects and has been using BIM to collaborate with other disciplines.

We do have good information from when we work with QS’s or shop detailers that we deal with directly when we go out and talk to them and found out what their requirements are so we pump that into the model.ö

He sees there is room for improvement in understanding what Asset owners, the end users of the building, would want from a Model.

We’ve got some good ideas from what we’ve found but overall it could be better I suppose, to understand up front.

But do owners themselves know what data they want to be able to manage from a model?

Paul Nunn, Senior BIM Consultant, Construction, CSI Global Services says that although owners may not know what they require from a model at the beginning of a process that if a builder is using a model for construction the majority of the information will already be contained within it.

The reality is that if we get the bulk of the information that a consultant would normally put into a model, with the schedules and specifications, if that’s included in the model that’s already 10 times more data than the client ever needs. Actually the builder needs a lot more information than the client ever will.

Who can you trust and where can you look for answers?

Bob Baird found that there isn’t an owners’ manual or a place to look that provides the answers on how to prescribe what asset owners should be asking from their consultants but some direction can be provided from NATSPEC, BUILDING SMART and the UK Government who have mandated the use of BIM on projects by 2016.

When Bob was asked which consultants he could work with and trust to work with on the implementation of BIM he said that I think we can trust the vast majority of people that we’ve spoken to.

BIM, as the old adage goes, is not a destination but a journey, and one that should reduce risk and cost, and the best way to start the journey is to talk to others with BIM experience, talk to your consultants and push to use BIM on your next project. The real risk lies in standing still and not embracing Building Information Modeling.

Release of the McGraw Hill SmartMarket Report on the ôBusiness Value of BIM in Australia and New Zealandö calls for greater BIM education and for Australian and New Zealand advocates to demand better content and shared data (p. 6)

In late 2013, McGraw Hill conducted 435 online surveys with Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Consultants and Building Owners from across Australia and New Zealand’s construction industry.

The Australia and New Zealand Business Value of BIM SmartMarket Report released today analyses the full range of data received and, in relation to BIM adoption, the levels of experience and collaboration, expected and estimated return on investment and likely future importance and adoption rates of BIM in five years in Australia and New Zealand.

On reading the report and listening to the speakers at today’s Consult Australia Technology Symposium, it is clear that greater sharing of models and data will provide the best incentive to improve the BIM and engage all project team members to return the benefits.

What the client wants:

Over two thirds of respondents reported that working with team members who have BIM expertise improves project outcomes and increases quality (P11).

What we are seeing on the ground is a need to shift the thinking from mandatory BIM implementation (ie. UK model) to best practice design and construction.

The ANZ SmartMarket Report data also suggests that building owners within both the public and private sectors are likely to have the greatest influence on BIM adoption (P7).

Clients will always expect better design and properly coordinated delivery of the project – on time and within budget. BIM is a tool that assists in delivering what the client wants. The technology facilitates the improvement in best practice. The project team should apply BIM because it makes business sense to do so. It generates savings through efficiencies like the development and implementation of any new technology or process should.

What the designer wants:

Canada reports that 89% of contractors æalways or often’ receive models from designers (P6). When it comes to expectations in receiving models from designers in Australia and New Zealand, just 9% hold this view. We rank at the lowest end, well below all other regions. In comparison to the US (44%), South Korea (50%), Brazil (50%) and UK (29%) our real BIM adoption rate falls far short of what we think is happening in relation to BIM take up and real project collaboration.

According to the report, over two thirds of Architects and Engineers are requesting ômore 3D Building Product manufacturer-specific contentö (P6). With the ground swell of take up amongst Architects and Engineers, the report highlights the need for this group particularly to demand content that is searchable and that can be indexed.

When working closely with designers across a range of large and small project, our 5DQS team at Mitchell Brandtman find that the greatest benefit to everyone is reliable data that can be revisioned quickly and accurately as the design develops. The technology allows for this. What is critical to the process is the understanding of the power of this data across the consultancy team and that everyone is aware of its usefulness up and down the chain of supply. Inevitable data anomalies are then able to be identified and rectified collectively and quickly.

What the Contractor wants

According to McGraw Hill’s report, Australian and New Zealand contractors are more likely to focus on whole of project team benefits through improved BIM processes (P21). Contractors rated more highly (in comparison to architects and engineers), better data integration, functionality and interoperability of the software as the factors most likely to increase the BIM benefits for users.

Contractors in Australia and New Zealand also seem to be leading the way in their plans to invest/upgrade IT infrastructure expressing high to very high importance for BIM (P42). More than half of the contractors who responded also plan to invest in developing collaborative BIM processes which McGraw Hill reports is outpacing the average of all other global regions.

What is also evident from the statistics overall is the role of the Contractors. The data supports the view that this group is most likely to be the key drivers of BIM adoption in Australia and New Zealand in the next few years given their calls for greater functionality of the software and more clearly defined deliverables to support BIM (P21).

In our experience when working with Contractors, particularly on large scale commercial and public sector projects, they are focused on IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) and VDC (Virtual Design and Construction) as the means to successfully deliver a project on time and on budget. IPD provides contractors with a softer way to contract. VDC allows contractors to rehearse the build which reduces waste and delivers a leaner project more likely to be on time and within budget.

Contractors want to derisk the project through accurate and fast, updatable documentation. All parties participating in BIM achieve this. Efficiency should be the driver for increased adoption and this is only going to come from greater sharing of project successes, knowledge sharing of work-arounds and software developments and full collaboration across the project team from preliminary design through construction and post construction.

Trades Take Up Fast

Contractors are reporting high proficiency use amongst Mechanical/Sheet Metal/Plumber trade contractors in Australia and New Zealand (P12). It is most likely that these trades can more readily see the immediate financial benefits and process improvements, particularly where they are moving to greater prefabrication (P14).

Given that on a typical building project trades make up approximately 83% of construction costs it is expected that BIM will most likely bring about the most immediate savings and benefits to the subcontractors. This is certainly what we are seeing on our 5D projects.

Engaging Non-Users

When we look more closely at the non-users responses more than two thirds believe that their competitors are using BIM but over 40% of them feel that it is at a low implementation level, of less than 15% of projects (P46). The report points specifically to this being more commonly thought within companies working domestically only.

By contrast, all large Contractors (revenues of $250million+) perceive that their competitors are using BIM and half of those believe it is at a high implementation level.

The top benefit that would influence take up for both non-user Contractors and Architects/Engineers is more accurate construction documents followed closely by improved communication (P47). What is surprising is that amongst the early BIM adopters these are both generally considered as immediate and achievable deliverables when implementing BIM across the project team.

It’s always about industry best practice

The report makes a strong case for greater education amongst domestically focused and small companies in Australia and New Zealand yet to adopt BIM or who are still at a very low level of implementation.

Whilst the strength of the advocacy of BIM in Australia and the number of organisations collaborating and conversing on how to improve it is essential, developing sound business strategy at the individual level to improve ROI is imperative. This can be achieved through better design and model data management and is likely to have a greater impact on adoption rates and encourage best industry practice. Historically this has always remained the greatest incentive for adoption of any new process or technology.

Whilst the industry debates the need for a national standard, what may serve us better is focusing on standardising the elements that can report the ROI coming out of better design and model integration of 4D and 5D.

We also need industry wide education on the best practice benefits of project collaboration along the supply chain. We know early decisions have a high ability to influence time and costs. We need to look beyond the issues of where we should be on the BIM journey and focus efforts on who can influence best practice at the early stages of design. This may create far greater success in leveraging BIM’s benefits throughout the design, construction and post construction phases for those in the project team who choose to adopt.

I recently attended the first BrisBIM event of 2014 along with a full house of 180 other people.

The appeal of BrisBIM lies in the people that attend and the networking opportunities it presents. A wide range of people attend, from Builders, Architects, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors and Technology consultants – it’s rife with interesting BIM conversations. Presenters generally speak openly about their experiences and projects which means there is some good insights especially when hearing from contractors.

Two presentations that I found of particular interest were:

4D Workflows and What’s Missing

Peter Ayre from Lend Lease explained they are making good progress with 4D (tying time and schedules to models) by using Navisworks and linking this back into P6. His experience was that whilst there are a lot of people claiming that they do 4D well, we are yet to see it being used to it’s full potential.

The Road to BIM: The John Holland Story so Far

Donald Cameron (pictured below) and Andrew Mattiske from John Holland also gave a talk that caught my attention. They spoke of the sophisticated system that they utilise on some of their builds where they can scan data from installed materials and are able to produce accurate as built models. Of particular interest to me was their ability to generate progress reports from the model and their inclusion of this data in their progress claims.

One point I continually take away from BrisBIM is how important collaboration is in order to get the most out of our building models. Recently Jennifer MacDonald, currently a lecturer at UTS, wrote a great article on our Blog focusing on collaboration from a research v’s education v’s industry viewpoint (she was a structural engineer for 10 years in the UK as well as Australia and is now a lecturer at UTS), and how important collaboration really is if we are to take BIM and design to the next level. Take a read.

Similarly, below is an exert that I like from Donald Cameron and Andrew Mattiske’s presentation that places collaboration as a cornerstone of positioning the Australian AEC industry in good stead against the threat of global competition:

“From an AEC industry perspective – we’re all in this together. We’re a manufacturing industry to some extent, similarly we’re going to be more and more exposed to the global trends, much the same way that the internet has affected news media. I certainly see that this technological age as having an impact in much the same way that we can design a building here to be made overseas, there’s obviously the competition and threat that the same thing can happen here. And we’ve got to be ready for it. And I see the best way for us being ready is by being integrated and working more collaboratively.”

I would love to hear your feedback on how you and your business are collaborating to get the most out of BIM. Please leave a comment in the box below.

If you’re in Brisbane for the next event on Wednesday 16th April 2014 be sure to come along. See you there!

In the fifth and final installment of David’s BIM Day Out presentation David answers a few questions about classification systems, green design and costs, accurate 3D model geometry and why you must always model the way that the project is constructed.

youtu.be/eq9WkCgytEM

For more information on BIM visit our BIM Advocacy pages by clicking here.

Also, view all parts of this video series by clicking on these links:

• Part 1: What Skills does a 5D QS need?
• Part 2: What is a 5D QS’s methodology?
• Part 3: Contracting & Applying the Methodology
• Part 4: What does BIM mean for Costs?

Be notified the very moment any new videos are posted by subscribing to our YouTube channel:

To understand who owns the savings that come about from Building Information Modeling you need to understand when a contract is formed and where the money is.

David Mitchell, Partner & 5D Quantity Surveyor at Mitchell Brandtman, explains what BIM means for costs in Part 4 of his BIM Day Out presentation. Watch the short video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQVfTd4Vj0

Also take a look at the other Parts in this video series: Part 1: ‘What Skills does a 5D QS need?‘, Part 2: ‘What is a 5D QS’s Methodology?‘ and Part 3: ‘Contracting & Applying the Methodology‘.

As well as our other BIM Cost article: “BIM Cost Benefits: Who Owns the Savings?”

This series of videos is from BIM Day Out where they have more great BIM presentations over at BIMtv. You may also be interested in BIMCrunch.com’s article “BIM Cost Benefits – Who Owns the Savings?”.