Integrated Project Delivery & Building Information Management Collaboration

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a relatively new procurement process that is intertwined with the rise of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry (AEC). BIM first and foremost is not a piece of software. It is a workflow, which some authors (Smith D et al, 2009; Eastman C et al, 2011) are now starting to refer to as Building Information Management to avoid confusion. Through the use of software that can leverage projects towards a BIM workflow, allowing professionals to coordinate an entire project from planning through to facility management, Murphy, G et al (2014). While BIM software can be used within a number of procurement systems, it works best with contractual processes that promote collaboration and interaction to create information. Design Build and IPD are two examples of contractual processes where BIM can be implemented collaboratively between the stakeholders of projects. Design Build breaks down the barriers between Architect and Contractor because in most cases they work together in the same company. The main disadvantage is the client often has less say once the project develops past the contract stage. IPD breaks down many of the barriers that stopped clients and professionals from collaborating in detail in traditional procurement systems. IPD allows all stakeholders to work in tandem with others and work with a shared responsibility. The client in an IPD system has more input because they can see and evaluate the 3D data at any stage of the design process.

So why are IPD and BIM so important to the future of the construction Industry? We are at the end of a recession and the world has changed. We are more aware of the sustainability of credit, resources, energy, and labour costs. Gone are the days when we could go back to the bank and know for certain that our credit lines could be topped up to cover project overruns. Also gone are the times when we could waste finite energy and resources in the rush to create bigger and more energy consuming buildings. The road ahead is more conservative (Eastman 2011, 1-31). Through IPD and BIM buildings are being created that look more contemporary than a decade ago. But they cost less, use fewer resources and energy, and ultimately are capable of being brought within time and budget. The manufacturing industry faced down these problems decades ago and reduced labour costs through automation, created new supply chains, and set about creating standardized components to reduce variations in the output. In the construction industry we are decades behind these industries. The greatest change to work practices aside from BIM and small form automated hand tools has been the size and capability of heavy machinery. But the work of skilled labourers has not changed dramatically in over 40 years. Through the use of BIM and IPD we can begin to change these work practices at a planning and design phase, and ultimately reduce waste and inefficient working practices (Garber 2014).

The other benefits of moving towards BIM and use IPD include: earlier/more accurate contextual visualizations, costing information, and detailed analysis at any stage of the project through collaboration. New possibilities are rapidly emerging for prefabrication, automation and form creation. The use of BIM via IPD also has the potential to enable the construction industry to adopt the Lean Management principles that have streamlined other industries for decades. Errors by members of the project team can quickly be resolved in the office, reducing the added costs of errors on site. Parametric restraints can further aid this process and make it easier for other professions to alter the model within predefined constraints. Clash detection software like Autodesk Navisworks can also discover issues that could never have been foreseen using 2D CAD software and paper based communication. But in order to work effectively IPD relies on all parties to share information without hesitation via the BIM model. If one party holds back information, or the information is not mature enough then it can negate the value of the model to others. In traditional workflows stakeholders are often suspicious of sharing data because they are afraid of costly litigation. This practice of holding back information has to end if IPD is to become more widespread and more easily adopted (Garber 2014, Eastman et al. 2011, 32-56).

As BIM and IPD processes become more common the information is becoming so enriched that it is becoming attractive for other industries to join the

1

revolution. Because of this Asset and Facility management companies are beginning to leverage the information of BIM models to streamline their workflow. Using post construction BIM models, FM managers can leverage the data to project the life cycle of a building and its services. Instead of working from scratch FM Managers can use this information and add data relevant to their industry to create an asset management model (AIM) (Pocock, D 2014). The main benefits of AIM are the optimization of operational and maintenance costs associated with a building. Even if an FM manager has to create an AIM model from scratch they can create an inventory of information that is readily accessible, as opposed to searching through network folders for different spreadsheets and data. An example of a company that has adopted BIM to streamline their data is the US Coast Guard. By centralizing all their information in BIM models of their assets, they have admitted that there is a time and labour saving of 98% vs traditional 2D based practices. That is a huge improvement on traditional practices (Eastman C et al 2011, 566-584). The use of BIM for FM Management has the ability to impact positively on an individual, portfolio and national level. But there are only a number of FM programs out there and there needs to be a greater scope for improved interoperability between BIM and Asset Information Management tools (Pocock, D 2014; Smith D et al. 2009). No one single program will ever be able to design all aspects of a building and its services. This is why interoperability needs to exist and get better in the future. The programs being used today are created in different ways, with different definitions of how elements work. This raises a number of issues with the interoperability of different programs between stakeholders. At the moment the development of software is quite fragmented and largely done in secret. Autodesk has created a number of useful programs for the AEC industry and is one of the market leaders. Its programs work great together because they are developed in the same way as each other. The result is greater interoperability between say Revit, 3ds Max and Navisworks. An issue arises when a stakeholder in the team uses a program by another vendor. There are a number of industry standards such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and CIS/2 that can help to translate this information but translation issues remain (Eastman C et al 2011, 331). Some pioneering companies are at the front of the tide of BIM, and are working with vendors to rectify and improve translation between software. But it will be some time until programs such as Autodesk Revit, Bentley Microstation and Graphisoft Archicad fully exchange data without issues and data loss. What is needed is similar to the practices of IPD. Developers need to collaborate on interoperability issues and work out viable solutions between programs for the benefit of the entire market going forward (Garber R 2014).

References:

2

Eastman, C. (2011). BIM handbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Garber, R. (2014). BIM design. Sussex: Wiley.

Murphy, G., Murphy, G., Hayes, M., Hayes, M., Hayes, M., Bashford, J., Bashford, J. and Bashford, J.

(2014). Building Information Modelling Architecture Ireland. [online] Architecture Ireland.

Available at: http://architectureireland.ie/building-information-modelling [Accessed 23 Oct. 2014].

Pocock, D., Shetty, N., Hayes, A. and Watts, J. (2014). Leveraging the relationship between BIM and

asset management. Infrastructure Asset Management, 1(1), pp.5--7.

Race, S. (2012) Bim demystified. London: Riba Publishing.

Smith, D. and Tardif, M. (2009). Building information modeling. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

3