BIM – Bureaucracy or Beneficial
There is no public investment into the Peters Village project and the last time I checked it was not 2016, therefore we are not at liberty to conform to any governmental BIM direction. That being said we are aspiring to collate all of the project data centrally and utilise technology to increase efficiency at an engineering and management level.
So is it working?
The Good – We have a BIM co-ordinator, a cloud based server, lots of drawings and 3D models. We have iPads with more auto-syncd forms than you would ever need and the ability to capture any media file type and link it to technical information. There is a data base that allows you to see (with permission) the commercial files, drawings, specifications, programmes, plant and materials lists on your phone if you so desire.
The Bad – The engineering check list and QA forms are on Autodesk BIM 306 on the ipads but the filing system is overly complex. The cloud based system is different to BIM 360. We have multiple designers who are using different CAD co-ords so dwgs need aligning. The designers are mostly sending through drawings in pdf format and not as part of a master CAD dwg. The cloud based servers is provided through a satellite link on the East Site compound and boosted over the river (very unstable). Whilst the cloud based system allows access anywhere, the system to upload and download files reminds me of the pain I went through trying to submit AER1. On and on…
The Ugly…Truth – The aspiration is commendable, one central log of information, accessible by all, from anywhere, anytime. The reality is multiple databases holding vast quantities of unrefined information. This is not as a result of lack of ambition but rather lack of training, man power and strategy. Those driving BIM are double hatted and unable to dedicate themselves to it, also they seem to lack the full support of the wider workforce.
BIM carries a high price tag and requires considerable effort to establish the required processes. Early set up and buy in are key, without them the whole process becomes a clunky digital filing system with increased vulnerabilities and lacks the ability to assist with increasing efficiencies. I find myself wondering if the system we have in place has actually brought about improvements of if it has over complicated things.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
How would you see this if it were overlaid onto 170 & an MCF working on a DIO or DFID project?
Afternoon Richard,
Quite simply I don’t know!
What I’ve realised through the research for the CI’s paper and since I’ve been on site is that you MUST define the why long before the how. As we all know BIM is more than the fancy 3D model that impresses clients. It should offer clarity to a project in a time where data input is at its highest and increasing. One of the problems I mentioned six months ago was that everyone was trying to find their way at the same time. DIO were trailing systems and DFID were using regional systems, that made it very hard to know who to go with and high to align your own procurement process, however, I don’t believe this to be as big an issue as it first appears. All of the big companies now have software that will merge, convert and import file types to allow them to sync (I’m not just talking about CAD but across the board).
I believe the issue is knowing why we are using BIM. If it is simply to fulfil government guidelines then do the bare minimum as quick as possible, but if it is, and I would hope it is, to benefit the project then that must be planned for.
We have developed some pretty sophisticated ways to communicate very sensitive information with our allies over the last decade. Much of that has been made possible by a desire to get it right. I would like to be able to say if we could do it in Afghan then we can do it in the UK however, I would be naively missing the issue of money which leads me to my conclusion that…funding will be insufficient and the results frustratingly lacking.
I think that internally BIM could be very useful and there is a definite advantage when looking at communication and data capture between 170Gp and the MCFs. The fact that 170Gp will own the ability to create the policy means this should be straight forward. Looking up and out is where things get a little more complex, this is where I think a lot of time and money will be wasted just as it may have been on site here…possibly…if I was being cynical!
As everything is linked to money do you think that if a client specified BIM as part of the contract and inspected it as part of the programme that it would, at a cost to the client obviously, be taken more seriously?
I’ve not dug deeply into BIM over here yet; but there are a number of things that USACE deep dive into (like contractors payrolls) that I assume would get the contractor to focus their energy to making sure they are right as they are linked more directly to payment?
Hi mate,
If the client asked us to paint the bridge pink we would do it. It would be costed, designed and painted in line with the specification but all of that would carry a cost to the client including a profit share to BAM Nuttall.
The Government are (to my knowledge) the only client that is demanding that BIM be used from next year and as such people are gearing up for it. BAM have a UK co-ord who is currently working out ‘the how’ part of the problem. ‘The why’ is simple, to win government funded contracts, they are worth a huge amount of money! I don’t believe they would be going through all of this if they didn’t have to, would 170Gp…I don’t think so!!!
The financial impact is huge but I believe the cultural change required to make the transition is even greater and that I fear will be the key area of friction with in 170Gp.
Thanks for the BIM blog – some good practical takeaways for those of us on sites or companies not embracing it. I have mentioned BIM several times in the USACE design office and they roll their eyes in realisation at how in the dark ages they are. I find a lot of my time spent with other disciplines deconflicting with pdf’s (!!!) due to different engineers using different programmes. Case in point, I am using Civil 3D for site and utility design while structural engineers use Revit, which I can’t open on my PC…not ideal when trying to deconflict column bases/pile caps with storm water pipes or electrical ductbanks!
Howard – That really surprises me, I was under the impression that USACE were well ahead of the curve with regards to BIM. My CI’s paper last year looked at the impact of 170Gp adopting BIM. USACE came up a lot in my research and all signs were positive, infact one report highlight how well the adoption had gone and mentioned that they were now increasing their ability/software capability.
The pdf battle you mention is no different to here, it almost feels like contractor send pdf’s to hide their dirty CAD truths and then use the file size argument to defend themselves. We have had to employ our in-house temp design team to model a complex section of rebar in a bridge pier in order to run clash detection, trying to do it off multiple pdf’s would have been harder than the fight against IS.
Really…wow! I’d be interested to see your paper, and which Divisions of USACE that BIM is being used. I haven’t had a whiff of it in the North Atlantic Division (ie. East Coast). One tends to find USACE is one organisation made up of significantly different Divisions (much like the states of the USA)…each Division tending to reflect as much as possible the global area within which they operate (if they are superior to USA). One might find that the Europe or Far East Divisions are embracing BIM. The litmus test will be if Brad uses it in his office – where budgets are immense, and the highest specs and QA are demanded due to the high profile of the client.
Howard, can you please send me your email address.
ojchild@gmail.com
Not sure if you picked up my email a while back – here’s my email: hooperhoward@gmail.com. Would be keen to read your essay in prep for CPR. Cheers