Messages from another lonely BIM planet

For some time now many building design teams have been modelling their projects as '3D CAD' to generate their 2D drawings. It is sometimes tempting to think that the 'BIM thing' is just about everyone else starting to add data on to the models we consultants have created. So it was good to hear from from a steel fabricator, Simon Bingham of Caunton Engineering, another sector of the industry that has been modelling for their own purposes for some time now - and good to hear so much that resonated with my views.

The event was the Steel Construction Institute (SCI) Members Day at the Tower of London and three presentations had been grouped about the theme of Integration. The headliner was probably George Oates of Expedition who told us about the London 2012 Olympic Velodrome. But whilst such projects are great inspirations these are not the bread and butter of 90% of the built environment and not the projects we most need to influence if the Government's Construction Strategy is going to achieve its aims. As Simon wonderfully said, the majority of us "don't have the time to fanny about like that" - I am so glad it's not just me that says that kind of thing in presentations!

Some of his key points feel like interesting twist on themes I have been exploring recently:

• In their previous lonely BIM world fabricators generated all their data from scratch. Now there is clearly the advantage of receiving this from earlier design stages by others. However, if this data is to be useful it must be clear and concise, accurate, timely, relevant, up to date and capable of being kept up to date. Being passed too much incorrect, unchecked data is a major frustration and risk. Simon gave the example of steel UBs modelled as concrete as the sort of trivial error that can cause problems. This re-emphasises to me the need for proper systems of verification of models by teams before sharing the data.
• Currently most of their data transfer is via IFC, from Revit or other platforms used by others into their main workhorse, Tekla. Caunton have experienced what I picked up from the recent Autodesk IFC workshop - that data transfer is far from standardised and smooth. Simon highlighted the need for clients to specify the IFC structure for data to be transferred, emphasising to me the need for project-wide comprehensive BIM Execution Plans that stretch beyond just the design team.
• Clients won't realise the benefits of collaborative working by driving each party's cost down to the minimum. You don't win matches by taking the eleven cheapest players and saying "it's the Final, there's the pitch, stick it in the net and I'll see you in ninety minutes". Clients need to pick the right team and then show leadership, setting direction and standards for BIM to work.
• Despite the 'end game' for BIM being for clients to receive high quality data, allowing them to better manage that asset for its full operational life, Caunton are yet to see clients requesting they get it. Instead they are still being asked to pass on old fashioned 'as-builts' - perhaps on a disc and not paper as a nod to new technology.
• Finally, we need to realise that fast decision times will equal less thinking time. Project Managers need to allow some for people to stare out of the window for an hour or so and make better quality decisions. (Today's blog entry was going to be my thoughts on this very subject, so it is a little weird that Simon voiced this.)

Too often the construction media links BIM to architecture featuring funky, blobby geometries. It was great to hear Simon highlighting the need for BIM to work for all the 'bread and butter' jobs. These will be the ones driving society's use of resources in the century to come and that is where it is most vital we realise the value of BIM.