NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

Integrated Project Delivery and

Landscape Architecture Curriculum: Perceived Benefits & Challenges to Curricular Integration

W.C. Harrison

5/8/2012

This paper examined benefits and challenges of including Integrated Project

Delivery (IPD) systems into landscape architecture curriculum. It provides a

literature review of IPD (specifically, Information Modeling (IM) and derivatives)

and effects of IPD integration into corollary design practices. Through literature

review and Diffusion of Innovations Theory, this paper hypothesizes: 1) IPD and

IM can enhance landscape architecture project delivery, particularly in the

design development phase, and 2) landscape architecture academia

represents the late majority and knowledge stage of innovation adoption.

Diffusion of Innovations seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas

and technology spread through cultures. Speculative benefits included

enhanced visualization of design change impacts and more efficient

calculations of materials and sharing of design documentation with corollary

professionals. A survey solicited perceptions of benefits and barriers to IPD

1

Keywords: Building Information Modeling (BIM), Site Information Modeling (SIM),

Information Modeling (IM), Landscape architecture curriculum, Site Design,

Technology, Diffusion of Innovations

adoption from the site design community specifically targeting landscape

architecture faculty Also a phone survey was conducted to assess the level of

IPD and IM implementation into landscape architecture programs. Survey

results provided insight into the challenges associated with adopting new

technologies. The phone survey revealed that 79% of landscape architecture

programs were not considering including IPD or IM into future curriculum while

2% have integrated them. Approximately 58% of electronic survey respondents

were not aware of IPD. Although not conclusive, findings suggested IPD and IM

were becoming more prevalent in site design. Landscape architecture lags

behind corollary professions in implementation of integrated innovations. Failure

to embrace innovations places landscape architect programs at a huge

disadvantage in professional practice.

2

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

Research Question ...................................................................................................... 11

1.0 Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 12

1.1 Landscape Architecture Curricula .................................................................... 12

1.2 Design Development in the Landscape Architecture Curricula ................ 14

1.3 Integrated Project Development (IPD) & Information Modeling (IM) ....... 15

1.4 IPD and Landscape Architecture Curricula .................................................... 26

1.5 Diffusion of Innovations Theory ........................................................................... 31

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................... 36

2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 37

3.0 Results .......................................................................................................................... 40

3.1 Benefits and Challenges ...................................................................................... 40

3.2 Diffusion of Innovations Theory ........................................................................... 41

4.0 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 45

5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 47

6.0 References.................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 1. Survey ............................................................................................................. 53

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 59

3

Definitions....................................................................................................................... 61

Organization Overview............................................................................................... 66

Figure 3. Survey Results ............................................................................................... 75

Figure 4. Phone Survey ................................................................................................ 82

Figure 5. Question Matrix ............................................................................................ 84

Figure 6. Word Cloud .................................................................................................. 85

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 86

4

Introduction

“No man is an island unto himself,” John Donne’s (1572-1641) famous quote

applies to landscape architecture. Much of what landscape architects do

touches upon and is often dictated by other disciplines; i.e., architecture,

engineering, and construction management. Certainly, landscape

architecture is not an island unto itself, making it imperative to implement IPD

systems. Landscape architecture does not want to find itself alone on an island.

Why should landscape architecture programs implement IPD systems and what

challenges will be encountered?

Design development, the process of translating conceptual design ideas into

implementable documentation, is a critical skill set for landscape architecture

project delivery. In professional practice and in education, the successful

achievement of efficient design development processes can greatly enhance

the quality of design projects. Additionally, with increasingly complicated design

projects requiring more complex collaborations with corollary professions, there

is a need for increased clarity and efficiency in the design development

process. Landscape architects have adopted numerous conventions to this end

with Computer-Aided Design (CAD) being the most prominent set of tools used

to streamline design development.

Architecture, engineering, and construction management disciplines have also

been in the pursuit of increased efficiencies in project delivery. Integrated

Project Delivery (IPD) emerged as a process to address this pursuit. IPD is “a

project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures

and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and

insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner,

reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design,

5

fabrication, and construction”. (AIA, 2011) IPD emerged from innovations in

project management and the need for more effective design project

integration with increasingly complex sites and collaborative design

partnerships. Building Information Modeling (BIM) emerged as an application of

IPD that uses visualization and database tools to create efficiencies in

communication and decision making in design project delivery. Although more

common in large scale architecture and engineering projects, Jim Sipes, ASLA,

a national leader in BIM training, writes, “The concept of BIM can be expanded

beyond buildings to include Site Information Models (SIM), Land Information

Models (LIM), and even Program Information Management (PIM)”. (Sipes, pg.

10) Examples of Information Modeling (IM) approaches in Landscape

Architecture practice include (Sipes, pg.32-37):

United States Coast Guard (USCG) Command Center

Approximately three million square feet of facilities was rendered in high

detail using Graphisoft ArchiCAD. In its Command Center project at

Yerba Buena Island, California, the USCG sought to develop a BIM

application that would allow it to focus on the big picture. This complex

project included developing a 1,200 square foot sector command center,

renovating 6,000 square feet of existing office space, and converting

11,000 square feet of barracks into new office space.

Disney's California Adventure—Paradise Pier

Walt Disney Imagineering (WDI) used 4D models to plan the construction

of Paradise Pier, which is part of Disney’s California Adventure in Anaheim,

California. Paradise Pier includes the longest roller coaster track in the

world. It was critical that the track erection sequence allow for ride test

and adjustments so the project would be completed on time. BIM was

used to model the track and other attractions at the pier and to help

6

coordinate the contractual sequence of the work. The BIM model

enabled the design team to produce very accurate, detailed

construction documents for the project. As a result, bids were within two

percent of each other because contractors had a good understanding of

what was expected. Change orders were minimal and the construction

was completed on time and within budget.

Higginson Park

Higginson Park is the major open space in Marlow, United Kingdom. In

2005, a limited design competition was held for a new modern pavilion in

the park. The scheme selected was developed by the firm of Markland

Klaschka Ltd. with landscape architect Whitelaw Turkington. According

to Markland Klaschka, the primary reason for using a BIM workflow was to

achieve the design flexibility it delivers. “We had to produce production

information to prove the scheme buildable,” says Robert Klaschka (2006

BE Awards). The visual images were important, in part because this was a

design competition, but also to help communicate the impact the

pavilion would have on the park. According to Robert Klaschka, “We

knew that if we just went with the visuals, although they are really juicy,

that wasn’t going to be the only thing to win the competition. BIM really

allows us to push the model hard: It gives us the ability to do more than

one thing” (2006 BE Awards).

Increasingly, the professional practice demands for IM approaches will impact

Landscape Architecture curricula, especially in design development. Not unlike

the impact of AutoCAD on design development curricula, it is conceivable to

speculate that BIM and SIM could have the same impact on courses. The

universities listed are just a sample of the many schools beginning to implement

IM and IPD into their curriculum (Autodesk, 2012):

7

Penn State University

Penn State stresses IPD concepts throughout its architecture and

engineering curricula, training students to participate effectively in

interdisciplinary design teams. In their final years, students participate in

collaborative cross-departmental courses and studios, using BIM solutions

to help develop, explore, and analyze building designs and experience

first-hand the benefits of using an interdisciplinary IPD approach.

Two studio courses in particular emphasize collaboration between

students across disciplines. One is a BIM capstone project that focuses on

integrating AE mechanical, structural, lighting, and construction

engineering students. The other is an interdisciplinary collaborative BIM

studio offered during a student’s fourth, fifth, or graduate year—

depending on the academic program. Both studios rely upon BIM

software for design development and information sharing.

In the collaborative BIM studio, graduate and undergraduate students

from six different disciplines—architecture, landscape architecture,

construction, and structural, mechanical, and lighting/electrical

engineering—are tasked with the design of a project using BIM software

for data collection, analysis, design development, data coordination, and

project presentations. Outside design professionals participate in work

sessions and project reviews. By closely engaging students in each other’s

work, the studio experience gives them insight into the technical,

aesthetic, and social aspects of a collaborative design process. In 2011,

this studio received an honorable mention in the NCARB Prize Program for

Creative Integration of Practice and Education in the Academy.

8

Cincinnati University

The University of Cincinnati offers a capstone design course for its

structural engineering undergraduate students and first year operative-

education-based Master of Architecture students. This capstone

experience introduces the students to the concepts and applications of

BIM and IPD, as well as fostering online collaboration between the

students, preparing them for leadership and innovation in an increasingly

globalized industry.

During the latest capstone project, structural engineering students

participated in the course for three quarters of their senior year and the

architecture students for two quarters. With this format, the teams

developed a preliminary design during the first quarter of the course. The

architecture students had early access to structural engineering expertise,

helping them make design decisions based on constructability and cost.

In the following quarters, the teams progressed into design development,

with the structural engineering students finishing the course with more

advanced structural design and analysis.

The capstone course featured a real building client and building project—

a large multinational hotel chain expanding into the United States. The

client is developing standardized hotel designs that will appeal to a

“Generation Y” market from an aesthetic and functional point of view. In

addition, the standardized design must be structurally suited for all areas

of the United States, including earthquake, hurricane, and heavy snow

zones.

Each team—which included both architectural and engineering

students—tackled market research, design studies, program reviews,

9

schematic design, design development, and structural analysis. The

student teams interacted virtually with each other throughout the project

as well as with the client, who provided input and feedback on the design

development throughout the project.

Yale University

Yale University’s School of Architecture offers a collaborative design

course to its second year graduate students. The course is an integrated

workshop and lecture series in which students use BIM software to develop

the technical systems of preliminary design proposals from their earlier

studio work. Coursework includes the advancement of structural form and

detail, environmental systems, and envelope design, as well as an

understanding of the constructive processes from which a building

emerges.

In this course, the student architectural teams are challenged with the

task of turning an architectural design into a building design and

addressing issues of constructability and the integration of building

systems. During their classwork, the teams are shepherded by architects,

structural engineers, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP)

engineers—generally outside design professionals—to simulate a

multidiscipline environment.

Kent State University

Kent State’s College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED)

offers degree programs in architecture, interior design, urban design, and

architectural studies. In their undergraduate years, CAED students receive

BIM training in computing classes and use computer applications in their

coursework, including classes in digital fabrication.

10

In their senior year, students participate in an integrated design studio. This

integrated design studio has been a mainstay of the professional program

in architecture at the Kent State for more than 30 years and is the

culminating class of a CAED student’s education. Using the knowledge

gained throughout their undergraduate experience, students develop a

capstone project that includes architectural, structural, and ME design

disciplines. The school reaches out to the commercial sector to represent

the structural and MEP disciplines.

The course objective is for students to formulate well-conceived design

solutions by integrating base knowledge from their prior coursework,

including the interrelationship of building systems. In addition, a significant

aspect of the learning experience is the teamwork necessary to

successfully complete the project. The students work primarily in teams of

two or three people (not including the outside structural and MEP

consultants).

In addition to the preparation of students for employment at firms that use BIM,

some speculations on benefits are possible. These benefits include: enhanced

comprehension of design decisions, enhanced cross-discipline collaboration,

and enhanced comprehension of the materials being used. Gordon V.R.

Holness P.E., former society treasurer of The American Society of Heating

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) writes, “Experience has

shown that not only can BIM deliver projects faster, cheaper and better but also

have the potential to gain the added benefits of being safer and greener”.

(Holness, pg. 44)

11

Research Question

Forty-five percent of landscape architecture programs reported having no plans

to incorporate IPD or IM into their curriculum. Approximately 58% of electronic

survey respondents reported not even being aware of IPD. Is the scarcity of

landscape architecture curricula, including IPD, a reflection of a lack of

professional demand for the IPD skill set? Is it a lack of faculty training and

expertise? Is it a lack of facilities and technology to effectively teach it? Since

the few curricula that include IPD are in multi-disciplinary environments IPD

(Penn State, Cal Poly, etc.), is the lack of IPD in many landscape architecture

curricula a reflection of the lack of IPD in the curricular interests of corollary

professionals? Little is known about the perceived benefits and challenges to IPD

integration into landscape architecture curricula. This paper asks the following

research question: what are the perceived benefits and challenges to

incorporating IPD into landscape architecture curricula by landscape

architecture faculty?

This paper uses a literature review to introduce Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)

and Information Modeling (IM). It describes professional and academic efforts to

apply IPD strategies and begins to identify how IPD resulted in more efficient

project delivery, especially in design development. IPD integration into design

practice and curriculum is discussed in the context of Diffusion of

InnovationsTheory (Rogers, 1995), and the literature review is used to frame issues

related to potential benefits and challenges to integration in landscape

architecture curriculum. Some hypothesized benefits include: 1) enhanced

visualization of the impacts of design changes, 2) better understanding of

materials, 3) a promotion of collaborative multidisciplinary studio, and 4)

improved efficiencies. Additionally, some hypothesized challenges with

curricular integration are presented. These challenges include: 1) lack of

departmental/program awareness; 2) faculty skill and experience with IPD; 3)

12

lack of training resources and facilities for IPD training; 4) lack of resources to

purchase and use IPD, and 5) lack of corollary professional pressure for IPD

training (particularly in landscape programs sharing curricula with architecture,

engineering, and construction management programs).

The literature review frames questions used in a survey of site design professionals

with an emphasis on landscape architecture faculty. The survey probes the

perceived benefits and challenges to integrating IPD into curricula. The findings

of the survey interrogate the initial assumptions about perceived benefits and

barriers to IPD integration and provide valuable insights for educators

considering implementation of enhanced design development capabilities.

1.0 Literature Review

1.1 Landscape Architecture Curricula

Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu from the Department of Architecture, Henan

Technical College of Construction, describe four major problems that exist in

current Landscape Architecture curricula: 1) insufficient training for students in

basic skills; 2) insufficiency in comprehensive quality; 3) unvaried teaching

content and methods; and 4) lack of students engaging in practical teaching.

Another interesting point raised by Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu is the

administration of design theory. “In order to avoid prating design theory, the

teachers should combine with the most updated scientific development and

hot issues in the selected cases, so as to make the students know and manage

the up-to-date information and development”. (Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan

Liu, pg. 139) Though this approach is debatable, some credence should be

given to the confusion experienced by students when first exposed to design

13

theory. Smith, professor of Architecture at the University of Cincinnati, writes, “A

curriculum should be thought of as a well-designed package of integral

components each of which serve in the capacity of the others. It is not an

effective educational strategy merely to introduce material in a sequential

pattern or link courses together, such as giving a theater design project while

the students are taking an introductory acoustics course. We must adopt a

model of architectural education in which the various germane issues are

presented in terms of their theoretical foundations and their architectural

significance in a manner that is integral to the rest of the curriculum”. (Smith, pg.

7) Smith goes on to explain that some architectural programs are creating

faculty teams to guide studios. These teams are comprised of faculty with

different areas of expertise, to provide students with a more holistic resource to

inform their design decisions. Smith writes, “Unfortunately, successful teams are

difficult to assemble in today's world of academia where most faculty are often

overworked, underpaid, and/or not fully committed to the concept of the

team”. (Smith, pg. 8)

There are many sources on the integration of technology-mainly multimedia-

into primary and secondary curricula but very little into site design curricula.

Most of the information pertaining to CAD in the site design fields speaks about

their application and not implementation into curricula. Though written in the

late 80’s, Dr. Marscalek’s, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, paper, A

New Approach to Curriculum Development in Environmental Design, does

include a production related category in his curricula description, which one

would assume would have included computer related topics in present time.

Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu write,” It (multimedia teaching) is good for

cultivating students' creative thinking and improving their image thinking ability.

Therefore, multimedia teaching is one of the best teaching methods of

Landscape Architecture education”. (Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu, pg.

14

139) Again, this looks at the implementation of multimedia tools, but not CAD,

and certainly not augmentations of it. There is a definite need for study in this

area to help facilitate the implementation of technical tools to assist in the

increasingly complex and interwoven site design practice.

1.2 Design Development in the Landscape Architecture Curricula

The needs of Landscape Architecture practice presumably impact the content

and delivery of Landscape Architecture curricula. Design development, the

translation of conceptual design into implementable documentation, is

achieved using a wide range of tools and techniques, and is increasingly reliant

on competencies in digital design media. Computer-Aided Design (CAD)

revolutionized the design development process by using technology to draft,

modify, and share design documentation more efficiently. These advantages

over what was previously a hand-drawn documentation process are well

established. These efficiencies impacted Landscape Architecture professional

expectations of student learning, faculty skill sets, and resources dedicated to

the design development process.

The Landscape Architecture Body of Knowledge (LABOK) report articulates a

base framework and expectation of the body of knowledge expected from

Landscape Architecture curricula. Of the nine domains identified, two are

focused on design development and the transformation of concepts to

implementable documentation: 1) Site design engineering: Materials, Methods,

Techniques and Applications; and 2) Construction Documentation and

Administration.

Through the guidance of a working group and analysis of program survey results,

the LABOK report provides a snapshot of professional and academic

15

perceptions of the needs of Landscape Architecture curricula. When asked

what design development skill sets were very important to professional practice,

82.75% of respondents reported that the ability to prepare construction

documents was very important (Table 19).

1.3 Integrated Project Development (IPD) & Information Modeling (IM)

Computer-Aided Design (CAD) has become an integral component in the

design process and, with the exponential growth of technology, will only

become more essential. CAD is software used in art, architecture, engineering,

and manufacturing to aid in precision drawing. Ivan Sutherland is often

credited as being a major contributor to CAD with his PhD thesis Sketchpad, at

MIT in the 1960’s. Ironically, unlike most CAD systems today, Sketchpad enlisted

the use of a light pen that designers used to draw directly onto their computer

monitor. Today, over 60 years later, there is a focus on creating more intuitive

and natural ways for users to interact with computers. This has manifested in

CAD as tablets, touch screens, and even incipient gesture recognition interface

technologies.

Integrated Project Delivery, sometimes referred to as concurrent engineering, is

a recent category in the evolution of CAD in the site design world. IPD is a

strategy that replaces the traditional sequential site development process with

one in which tasks are performed analogously by all design team members. It

provides instant feedback to all team members as they manipulate the site

design by showing how their manipulations affect those made by the rest of the

teams, both graphically and non-graphically. The goals of IPD are to optimize

project results, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of

design, fabrication, construction, and even maintenance. Holness stated, “The

16

benefits [of IPD] can be substantial, with the potential savings in construction

cost alone expected to range from 15% to 40%, with parallel reductions in

construction schedules and improvements in quality”. (Holness, pg. 39) An

example is a landscape architect who is grading a site. In order to

accommodate the grading, a civil engineer would review a digital or print

representation of the change, or at best an x-ref. The civil engineer would then

proceed to modify the storm water management systems and relay the

changes back to the landscape architect in a circular, yet sequential order. In

an IPD environment, as soon as the landscape architect made the grading

change they would be instantly informed how their manipulation to grade has

affected run off velocity, storm water management systems, and all of the other

site components. These innovations lend themselves to the ever more

connected world of site design. The ability to work on one file concurrently,

provide instant quantitative and qualitative feedback, and being able to

expand these abilities to a design team stationed virtually all over the world are

the essence of IPD.

Information Modeling (IM) is an integral component of IPD and is a system of

evaluating geometry, spatial relationships, light analysis, geographic

information, quantities, and properties of a building’s components. Though

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the most prevalent form of IM, it can be

expanded beyond buildings to include Site Information Models (SIM), Land

Information Models (LIM), and even Program Information Management (PIM).

(Sipes, pg. 10)

The Building Smart Alliance, a council of the National Institute of Building

Sciences (NIBS) is an organization, “helping to make the North American real

property industry more efficient by leading the creation of tools and standards

that allow projects to be built electronically before they are built physically using

17

Building Information Modeling (BIM)”.( Building Smart Alliance, 2012) They are

currently working with the following governmental and private organizations to

promote the use of BIM (an overview of the organizations can be found in the

Appendix D):

Governmental Organizations

1. General Services Administration (GSA)

2. U.S. Air Force Building Information Modeling for MILCON

Transformation

3. U.S. Army - Civil Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)

4. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Private Organizations

1. 7group

2. American Institute of Architects (AIA)

3. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)

4. American Society for Quality (ASQ)

5. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE)

6. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

7. American Society of Professional Estimators

8. American Society of Interior Designers (ASID)

9. Association of General Contractors of America (AGC) – BIM Forum

10. Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)

11. Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA)

12. Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC)

18

13. Center for Facilities and Environment (CIFE)

14. Construction Industry Institute (CII)

15. Construction Managers Association of America (CMAA)

16. Construction Owners Association of America (COAA)

17. Construction Specifications Institute (CSI)

18. Construction Users Round Table (CURT)

19. Design Build Institute of America (DBIA)

20. FIATECH

21. Georgia Tech AEC Integration Lab

22. Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability (MTS)

23. International Center for Facilities (ICF) Ottawa

24. International Code Council (ICC) - SMARTcodes™

25. International Facilities Managers Association (IFMA)

26. Lean Construction Institute (LCI)

27. National Academy of Sciences Federal Facilities Council (FFC)

28. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

29. National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP)

30. Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

31. Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE)

32. PRO IT: Finnish Consortium of Modelers

33. Project Management Institute Design Procurement Construction

Specific Interest Group (DPC-SIG)

34. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association

(SMACNA)

35. Specifications Consultants in Independent Practice (SCIP)

36. Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC)

37. U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)

19

NIBS also reported that recently the United Kingdom g\Government initiated a

strategy for the requirement of building information modeling (BIM) on all

projects within 5 years. Although a minimum project size was initially set, it is felt

this was arbitrary and will likely be eliminated. The starting point for the UK’s

implementation is Construction Operations Building information exchange

(COBie) using a spreadsheet as a base from which everyone can work. They see

BIM and COBie as significant parts of their carbon reduction strategy. COBie is

open BIM standards based using the international standard ISO 16739 or IFC,

which is at the heart of the building SMART alliance™ approach. COBie was

recently added to the National BIM Standard-United Statess™. Sipes forecasted

this trend in his 2008 Landscape Architect Technical Information Series

contribution, “Soon, all major design and construction projects will require BIM at

one level or another. There will be opportunities for collaboration at a much

higher level than ever before, and landscape architects should play a major

role in addressing even the most complex design, planning, and construction

projects”. (Sipes, pg. 2)

Even though IM has been on the market since the 1980’s and has been

embraced by many private and public organizations, it has not been

embraced by the Landscape Architecture profession. Flohr wrote, “Currently IPD

and BIM software are being developed by the software and construction

industry with American Institute of Architects at the helm, and landscape

architects have little to no voice in this process”. (Flohr, pg. 170) According to

Holness, “compared to other industries (automotive, aircraft, petrochemical,

etc.), the design and construction industry has been slow to embrace the

tremendous opportunities afforded by this technology”. Perhaps one way to

explain this disparity is three myths described by Marc Goldman who led the

global BIM business efforts for Pinnacle InfoTech Inc. and Satellier Inc. in a 2011

Design Intelligence article (Goldman, 2011):

20

Myth: Not Enough Content

Due to the relatively recent introduction of IM into the site design field, a

common complaint is the lack of a complete library for IM applications.

This issue is averted by the ability for all IM software to provide functionality

for customizing and creating new content.

Myth: It’s Immature

Goldman writes, “There exists a belief that BIM software is immature or

simply not applicable to the field of Landscape Architecture. This is the

leading barrier to adoption of BIM for landscape”. (Goldman, 2011)

However, IM applications can be successfully applied to landscape

because IM is fundamentally about intelligent objects that work on a

database foundation. There are also several existing applications such as

Civil3D, Landmark, and Revit that can currently be used for the landscape

architecture practice.

Myth: Poor Data Exchange

Due to the information latent nature of IM, the issue of content access

and sharing is an important issue. This is essentially where the overarching

concept of Integrated Project Delivery comes into action. Numerous

workflow solutions that improve collaboration are being developed along

with IM standards, such as the efforts being made by the Smart Building

Alliance.

21

However, IM is quickly becoming integrated into site design practice for

professions corollary to Landscape Architecture. The most prominent

manifestation of IM is Building Information Modeling (BIM) which focuses on built

structures. At the 2009 AIA Convention, Neeley wrot, “Design professionals are

moving to BIM [at least two] times faster than the transition from hand drawing

to CAD, which took about fifteen years.” (Deutsch, pg. 4) Strong described, “In

many ways, the move toward BIM is an owner-driven change. Technological

evolution coupled with owner demand for better, faster, less costly construction

projects and more effective practices are driving change in the construction

industry in general and architecture practice in particular”. (Sipes, pg.4) With

increasingly complex projects and with numerous professional colleagues in

different locations working simultaneously, IM might become more appropriate

for mainstream Landscape Architecture practice and, therefore, education.

Travis Flohr, RLA, from the Department of Landscape Architecture at Penn State

wrote, “With current economic pressures, and clients demanding faster project

delivery with a higher degree of accountability, BIM can provide an advanced

software solution” (Flohr, pg.170) Sipes stated that, “Landscape architects

frequently work with architects, many of whom are already using BIM. Being

able to work with the same BIM files as architects is a huge advantage for any

sub-consultants wanting to work on architecture-oriented projects”. (Sipes, pg.

24)

There is also opposition to BIM integration into architectural design. Peggy

Deamer stated during the Autodesk Yale University symposium in 2010 that,

“more fundamentally the intimacy of the design process is deeply shaken by a

software (BIM) who’s main attribute is precisely to do away with that intimacy,

an intimacy that is threatened by no longer believing in a singular author and no

longer believes in the myth of inspiration”. (Deamer, 2010) Renee Cheng, Head

22

of the Department of Architecture from the University of Minnesota, stated,

“…one can easily fear a future where BIM has effectively made us too stupid to

question the rules and assumptions we are meant to control”. (Cheng, 2006)

Integrated Project Development (IPD) and Information Modeling (IM) offer both

benefits and challenges in their inclusion into site design practice. These benefits

and challenges have been identified with respect to Landscape Architecture,

Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Management practices:

Benefits

1. Enhanced design visualization

As the nature of BIM is 3-dimensional, a virtual model of a design is able to

be seen before it is constructed, or non-digitally modeled. This provides

designers with almost instant aesthetic feedback on their design decisions.

“Three-dimensional models have great importance not only in their

traditional role as a means of communicating design information but also

in externalizing the designer’s thought process by allowing visualization of

the design product.” (Nahm, Y. -. & Ishikawa, H., pg. 137)

2. Reduced errors and omissions

IPD can instantly detect potential flaws or errors in design schematics

before an actual structure is built. This is done not only within the

landscape architect’s scope of work, but with other collaborating fields.

Sipes wrote, “BIM can be used to check for compliance with building

codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and other

requirements. This same approach can apply to a site as well”. (Sipes, pg.

5) Flohr echoed this by referencing Eastman, “BIM can also eliminate

inefficiencies in the design and construction process. Working with a

23

central file allows for real-time updates of information so every consultant

is working with current information. Automated construction

documentation and centralized file repositories have saved time and

money by reducing change orders (Eastman 2008)”. (Flohr, pg. 169)

3. More focus on value-added tasks

Because BIM enables the designer to essentially work concurrently with

their design and the constructability of that design, more time can be

appropriated to further design exploration. James Sipes also wrote, “BIM

also provides opportunities to explore a broader range of design

alternatives and to analyze life cycle costs for these alternatives. With a

greater level of collaboration at the beginning of the project, it is possible

to make many critical decisions earlier during the design part of the

process”. (Sipes, pg. 5)

4. Less waste of materials and time; less reworking

There are ample opportunities for improving efficiency and productivity in

the construction industry. The U.S. General Services Administration

estimates that an integrated delivery can help reduce waste in the

construction industry by more than 30 percent (Cote 2008). “The increase

in ability to analyze construction sequencing, means and methods,

procurement evaluation, and schedule analysis will lead to faster, more

efficient fabrication and construction,” indicated Dan Kirby, Director of

Development Services for Boyken International, Inc. (Kirby 2007).(Sipes, pg.

5) A big benefit provided by IPD and IM is increased productivity and

project efficiency. “Any BIM package is going to give you a change in

productivity,” saids AEC Infosystem’s President, Dianne Davis. “We have

documented our change as being about a 40 percent increase in

productivity, and that is significant” (Davis 2007). Holness stated, “The

24

benefits can be substantial, with the potential savings in construction cost

alone expected to range from 15% to 40%, with parallel reductions in

construction schedules and improvements in quality”. (Holness, pg. 39)

Holness went on to explain that through these enhanced efficiency, “…

reduced both scrap handling, and on-site transportation, lessened the use

of on-site aerial lifts, minimized site disturbance, and reduced overall

energy use through shorter construction schedules”. (Holness, pg. 44)

5. Fewer translation errors and losses

By using real-time, object based imaging and building information

modeling database techniques, the architectural/engineering (A/E)

drawings can facilitate the direct, seamless, and simultaneous flow of

information to all parties in the construction process: owners, program

managers, consultants, code officials, general contractors, trade

subcontractors, suppliers, distributors, vendors, and manufacturers. The

potential exists to significantly reduce the number of communication

steps, eliminate the need to translate or transfer information, thereby,

reducing time and cost while increasing accuracy and quality. (Holness,

pg. 39)

Challenges

1. Investment Costs

A major challenge to the integration of IPD and IM into both academia

and professional practice is the investment costs. Holness stateds, “One

might ask why this radical change to using BIM hasn't already occurred.

The answer lies in part in the original investment cost, which is significant. In

today's highly competitive market, it is tough to cover the upfront cost.

Someone has to develop the electronic database and software for every

25

component going into a building. Some of this development is being

done by commercial software companies. Some work will be done by the

building component manufacturers, as part of product development.

Some will be done by the A/E companies themselves, tailoring and

integrating the various software packages”. (Holness, pg. 46) A specific

aspect of this investment cost is the amount of storage space required by

BIM. Sipes writes, “Because of the data needs for BIM, storage is a major

issue.” (Sipes, pg. 7) Sipes goes on to mention the exponential growth of

storage capacity that will eventually make this a mute issue.

2. Training

Due to the complexity of BIM software, it is critical that practitioners

receive proper training. Sipes wrote, “The intelligence of BIM is built upon

the experiences of countless designers and engineers who have had input

in creating the software and defining the rules that govern BIM. It is critical

that more experienced designers, project managers, and principals be

able and willing to validate, check, and modify the data in BIM. One

approach is to incorporate adequate verification points and milestones

during the design and construction process to keep a project on track

and to validate decisions”. (Sipes, pg. 6)

3. Ownership and Liability

Another challenge is the shifting and dissemination of liability amongst

project participants. Sipes wrote, “The increased level of integration and

collaboration comes with a risk. The BIM approach is collaborative, data is

shared, and the design process is iterative. Because of this, liability and

risks are shared by the owner, the designer, the builder, and all other

parties involved in a project. In the short term, this could cause some

significant concerns because of the legal liabilities. Under the existing

26

contract structure, Landscape Architecture firms are simply not set up to

accommodate the shared risk that comes with BIM”. (Sipes, pg. 7)

1.4 IPD and Landscape Architecture Curricula

As stated previously, several universities have already begun incorporating IPD

and IM into their curriculas. An AutoDesk report describes “lessons learned” and

“faculty advice” from the implementation of BIM and IPD into Penn State, Kent

State, Cincinnati University and Yale University’s design curriculas (Autodesk,

2012):

Lessons Learned

During the BIM and IPD studios, students gain skills in team building and

communication, but this collaborative experience can also negatively

influence the quality of the project if there is too much design by

consensus. Faculty need to balance the need for practical

compromises against students taking the path of least resistance.

Penn State’s collaborative studios can only accommodate a portion of

its students based on the complexity of organizing and managing the

logistics, educational schedules, student teams, and outside design

professionals. As the studios and their pedagogical goals evolve, the

faculty is constantly working to balance the goals against the required

effort and results.

A collaborative team environment and design process can be

frustrating for many students who typically work independently.

27

Expectations for team behavior and goals are discussed early in the

process and monitored throughout the studio by the faculty.

For students to master the basics of the BIM software and use it

productively on their capstone project, software self-training needs to

be paired with external expert training.

The students immediately embraced the interactive, online

collaboration aspects of the course. In addition, the online

collaboration forced them to plan for their virtual meetings and

communicate—both verbally and digitally—more precisely. However,

coordinating the schedules and computing platforms of students from

two colleges (architecture and engineering) was challenging. In such

an interactive course, both students and faculty must be flexible with

their schedules, as project dialog and critiques can occur at various

times—including weekends and evenings—via both scheduled and

spontaneous review sessions.

Charging the students with producing designs that were both

innovative (architecturally) and practical (structurally) in the course

timeframe was sometimes challenging for the students and reduced

the quality of the student projects.

The major challenges of using IPD in an educational curriculum relate

to the students’ knowledge of the interrelationship of building systems.

It is important to address a student’s knowledge of integrated design

earlier in their education, optimizing the value of collaborative teams

and decision-making in their culminating studio experience. In prior

classes and studios, architectural students should go beyond

28

conceptual design to confront detailed design and the integration of

building systems—proving the constructability of radical forms when

appropriate.

The use of building simulation software and multidiscipline design

solutions in lower grades helps students explore the relationship

between design and construction. This enables them to integrate their

conceptual design thinking with building methods and materials, and

better understand how a range of factors including aesthetics, cost,

and environmental impact can influence design decisions.

At the beginning of the studio, some architectural students are

uncomfortable working outside their own academic discipline and are

reluctant to embrace the collaborative experience. The faculty must

impress upon the students that design development is a continuation

of the design process and that building systems can be used as tools to

advance their design.

Students should receive training in the BIM software earlier in the

curriculum, enabling them to focus on the collaborative design goals

of the studio without the distraction of learning new software.

Faculty advice

To prevent unbalanced student teams, the faculty should be closely

involved in the formation of the studio teams.

29

In schools without construction disciplines, collaborative classes and

design studios should include outside construction professionals who

can provide real-world input and experience.

Work closely with other faculty members to produce studios that meet

the needs of the students.

Due to the additional faculty and resources required to manage

collaborative studios, administrative support and enthusiasm is essential

for the studio’s success.

Work closely with other faculty members to produce studios that meet

the needs of the students and different educational programs, building

support for the studio amongst the faculty and administration.

The student teams should have a critical mass to challenge each other

and promote a healthy level of competition between the teams.

Administrative commitment and support is crucial for a success due to

the additional resources (faculty and infrastructure) required for the

course.

The use of a real project and a real client greatly enhances the

student’s learning and whenever possible should be incorporated into

the collaborative studio experience.

Though the majority of the articles referenced were from the perspective of

corollary fields and professional practice, many of the same benefits and

challenges can potentially be applied to Landscape Architecture curricula:

30

Benefits

1. Enhanced design visualization

2. Reduced errors and omissions

3. More focus on value-added tasks

4. Less waste of materials and time and less reworking required

5. Fewer translation errors and losses

6. Promotion of cross-discipline collaboration

Challenges

1. Investment Costs

2. Training

31

1.5 Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Given the measurable benefits provided by adoption of IPD strategies in

corollary design professions, as well as a small segment of landscape

architecture curricula and practitioners, how can these trends inform the

investigation of perceived barriers to a more widespread adoption of IPD in

landscape architecture?

Diffusion of Innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what

rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. “Diffusion refers to the

process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over

time among the members of a social system. Innovations are new ideas, the

new application of innovations, or an idea perceived as new. When it comes to

the adoption of innovations and ideas, one of the central questions

surrounding diffusion research is the identification of differences between early

and late adopters. Innovativeness refers to the willingness and ability to adopt

new ideas earlier than other people or groups”. (Diffusion of innovations, 2009)

The Diffusion of Innovations theory identifies six factors that characterize

adopters along with the nature of their environment:

1. Societal entity of innovators

2. Familiarity with the innovation

3. Status characteristics

4. Socioeconomic characteristics

5. Relative position in social networks

6. Personal characteristics

32

Another significant component of Roger’s theory is the rate of adoption of the

innovation. Five factors of adoption are described below (Diffusion of

innovations, 2009):

1. Relative advantage of the innovation in comparison to existing solutions

and practices

2. Compatibility with existing and potential needs and experiences

3. Complexity in terms of the degree of understanding

4. Trialability, that is, to experience the innovation to a certain degree and

time period

5. Observability or degree to which an innovation or its results are

observable. The thesis is that if individuals see the success of an

innovation they are more likely to adopt it.

Roger’s theory addressed the stages of adoption of the innovation. Five stages

of adoption are described below (Rogers, page 20):

1. Knowledge occurs when an individual (or other decision making unit)

learns of the innovation's existence and gains some understanding of how

it functions

2. Persuasion occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)

forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.

3. Decision occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)

engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the

innovation.

33

4. Implementation occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)

puts an innovation into use. Re-invention is especially likely to occur at the

implementation stage.

5. Confirmation occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)

seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision that has already been

made, but the individual may reverse this previous decision if exposed to

conflicting messages about the innovation.

Rogers also identified five categories of adopters described below (National

Network of Libraries of Medicine, 1997):

1. Innovators are the first 2.5 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt

an innovation. Venturesomeness is almost an obsession with innovators.

This interest in new ideas leads them out of a local circle of peer networks

and into more cosmopolite social relationships. Communication patterns

and friendships among a clique of innovators are common, even though

the geographical distance between the innovators may be considerable.

Being an innovator has several prerequisites. Control of substantial

financial resources is helpful to absorb the possible loss from an

unprofitable innovation. The ability to understand and apply complex

technical knowledge is also needed. The innovator must be able to cope

with a high degree of uncertainty about an innovation at the time of

adoption. While an innovator may not be respected by the other

members of a social system, the innovator plays an important role in the

diffusion process-- that of launching the new idea in the system by

importing the innovation from outside the system's boundaries. Thus, the

innovator plays a gatekeeping role in the flow of new ideas into a system.

34

2. Early Adopters are the next 13.5 percent of the individuals in a system to

adopt an innovation. Early adopters are a more integrated part of the

local system than are innovators. Whereas innovators are cosmopolites,

early adopters are localites. This adopter category, more than any other,

has the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential

adopters look to early adopters for advice and information about the

innovation. This adopter category is generally sought by change agents

as a local missionary for speeding the diffusion process. Because early

adopters are not too far ahead of the average individual in

innovativeness, they serve as a role-model for many other members of a

social system. The early adopter is respected by his or her peers and

embodies successful, discrete use of new ideas. The early adopter knows

that to continue to earn esteem of colleagues and to maintain a central

position in the communication networks of the system; he or she must

make judicious innovation-decisions. The early adopter decreases

uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it and then conveying a

subjective evaluation of the innovation to near-peers through

interpersonal networks.

3. Early Majority is the next 34 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt

an innovation. The early majority adopt new ideas just before the average

member of a system. The early majority interact frequently with their peers,

but seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system. The early

majority's unique position between the very early and the relatively late to

adopt makes them an important link in the diffusion process. They provide

interconnectedness in the system's interpersonal networks. The early

majority are one of the two most numerous adopter categories, making

up one-third of the members of a system. The early majority may

35

deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. "Be not

the first by which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside," fits the

thinking of the early majority. They follow with deliberate willingness in

adopting innovations, but seldom lead.

4. Late Majority is the next 34 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt

an innovation. The late majority adopt new ideas just after the average

member of a system. Like the early majority, the late majority make up

one-third of the members of a system. Adoption may be the result of

increasing network pressures from peers. Innovations are approached with

a skeptical and cautious air, and the late majority do not adopt until most

others in their system have done so. The weight of system norms must

definitely favor an innovation before the late majority are convinced. The

pressure of peers is necessary to motivate adoption. Their relatively scarce

resources mean that most of the uncertainty about a new idea must be

removed before the late majority feel that it is safe to adopt.

5. Laggards are the last 16 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an

innovation. They possess almost no opinion leadership. Laggards are the

most localite in their outlook of all adopter categories; many are near

isolates in the social networks of their system. The point of reference for the

laggard is the past. Decisions are often made in terms of what has been

done previously. Laggards tend to be suspicious of innovations and

change agents. Resistance to innovations on the part of laggards may be

entirely rational from the laggard's viewpoint as their resources are limited

and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail before they can

adopt.

36

Summary of Findings

There is very little information about the structuring of landscape architecture

curricula or the integration of technology into landscape architecture curricula.

The literature suggests that the majority of landscape architecture academia is

not on the cutting edge of the latest technological innovations for site design

practice. However, with the current economic condition, the demand for faster

and more efficient project delivery, and more complex projects, IPD and IM will

become more prevalent in the site design industry. Corollary professions to

landscape architecture are using IPD and IM more frequently in both

professional practice and academia. In addition to the economic challenges

to implementing these innovations, there are also psychological barriers that

contribute to current status of IPD and IM in landscape architecture academia.

37

2.0 Methodology

To evaluate the hypothesized benefits and challenges associated with IPD

integration, an electronic survey (Appendix A) was created to solicit the

perceptions of landscape architecture faculty. In addition, a phone survey

(Appendix F) was conducted to assess the level of IPD and IM implementation

into landscape architecture programs in the United States. The surveys were in

part informed by Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory, a highly

regarded social theory created by Rogers in 1962. The electronic survey was

created and distributed online using Wufoo. Wufoo is an Internet application

that enables users to create online forms. When you design a form with Wufoo,

it automatically builds the database, backend and scripts needed to make

collecting and understanding your data easy and efficient. Both surveys were

targeted at the 70 accredited and candidacy landscape architecture

programs described by the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).

Accreditation is administered by the Landscape Architectural Accreditation

Board (LAAB). The accreditation process evaluates each program on the basis

of its stated objectives and compliance to externally mandated minimum

standards. The electronic survey was also distributed through Land8Lounge, a

social networking site that is specific to site design students and professionals.

An electronic survey was used because of its ability to be completed at the

respondent’s pace, produce faster results, reduce errors, analyze data, and be

easily disseminated. It was comprised of 16 multiple choice questions and 1

open-ended question. Due to low percentage of responses from the electronic

survey, a phone survey was also conducted to generate additional statistical

analysis information about the use of IPD/IM into landscape architecture

curricula. One of the disadvantages to using the survey method is the

generalization of questions in order to make them appropriate for all

respondents, which can result in an exclusion of information. To alleviate this,

38

“other” selections were available for all applicable multiple choice questions.

Additionally, respondents were able to contribute other comments during the

phone interview. The electronic survey yielded a response rate of 44%. The

phone survey yielded a response rate of 60%. The electronic survey was

analyzed and the results organized into two categories which are further

elaborated on in the Results section:

2.1 Benefits

1. Enhanced visualization of the impacts of design change

2. Better understanding of materials

3. A promotion of collaborative multidisciplinary studio

4. Improved efficiencies

2.2 Challenges

1. Lack of departmental/program awareness

2. Faculty skill and experience with IPD

3. Lack of training resources and facilities for IPD training

4. Lack of resources to purchase and use IPD

5. Lack of corollary professional pressure for IPD training

The phone survey was used to collect additional statistical information about the

use of IPD and IM in national landscape architecture programs. Respondents of

the phone survey were asked if their program used IPD or IM in their current

curricula, and if not, were they considering incorporating them. Anecdotally,

some respondents offered additional information which was added to the

statistical data.

Both survey’s results were also analyzed through the lens of Rodger’s Diffusion of

Innovations theory to determine landscape architecture academia’s potential

39

level of innovation acceptance. The portions of the Diffusion of Innovations

theory that were used were characterization, stages of adoption, and adopter

category:

Participant Characterization

These questions are rooted in two of the six factors that characterize

adopters: Societal entity of innovators; and Familiarity with the innovation.

Participant Stages of Adoption

These questions are rooted in the five stages of adoption: knowledge;

persuasion; decision; implementation; and confirmation.

Participant Adoption Category

The questions are rooted in the five categories of adopters: innovators;

early adopters; early majority; late majority; and laggards.

40

3.0 Results

The Results section is an analysis of both the Wufoo and phone surveys. The

statistical information was gathered to provide insights into the challenges

associated with adopting new technologies and to determine landscape

architecture academia’s potential level of innovation acceptance. The first

section analyzes the hypothesized benefits and challenges of IPD and IM

implementation into landscape architecture curricula. The second analyzes the

survey information through the lens of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory to

determine landscape architecture academia’s level of innovation acceptance.

Only characterization, stages of adoption, and adopter category from Rogers’

theory were used in the assessment.

3.1 Benefits and Challenges

Benefits

Due to the 69% of electronic survey respondents who reported not using IPD in

their design development courses or 58% who reported not being aware of IPD,

it was difficult to examine the hypothesized benefits of IPD and IM integration.

However, 6% of respondents reported observing a decrease in student work

time, an increase in accuracy, and improved visualization. Of the 13% of

respondents who used IPD in their courses, 75% agreed that IPD had enhanced

their design development courses. Of the respondents that had IPD in their

design development courses, 50% indicated being undecided about its ability

to make their students more competitive for professional work. None of the

respondents commented on promotion of enhanced multidisciplinary studios

due to the implementation of IPD or IM.

41

Challenges

The electronic survey yielded more insightful information about the hypothesized

challenges than the benefits. The lack of resources to purchase IPD/IM was

reflected by 10% of respondents who indicated that increased resources for

software would improve their ability to adopt IPD in their courses. This was

followed by 7% who cited increased departmental support and awareness for

IPD. Faculty skill and experience with IPD/IM was limited. Forty-two percent of

respondents indicated they were not familiar with IPD, and 16% did not have the

skill to use IPD in their curricula. Additionally, 13% responded that they were not

experiencing any departmental pressure to implement IPD as the reason for not

using innovation. Interestingly, 35% were familiar with Building Information

Modeling (BIM), while only 29% were aware of Site Information Modeling (SIM).

Thirty-two percent reported learning about IPD through interaction with other

design professionals, and 6% knew about IPD before teaching. Three percent

indicated an increase in practitioner demand for IPD would improve their ability

to adopt it. Approximately 67% of respondents were undecided whether or not

IPD could enhance their students’ competitiveness for professional work.

3.2 Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Characterization

These questions are rooted in factors that characterize adopters. The only

factors assessed were: societal entity of the innovator and familiarity with the

innovation. The other factors-- status characteristics, socio-economic

characteristics, relative position in social networks, and personal characteristics--

were omitted as they had no relevance to this study:

Societal entity of innovators (people, universities, regions, etc.)

42

Through this lens the survey respondents are classified as educators in

landscape architecture.

Familiarity with the innovation

Forty-two percent of electronic survey respondents indicated knowledge

of IPD. Additionally 31% indicated they used IPD in their courses. The 31%

was only based upon 18 responses of the possible 31. With the lack of

responses and consistency to the questions, I am inclined to believe that

there is, in general, a lack of familiarity with IPD and IM among landscape

architecture educators. Additionally, the phone survey resulted in only 2%

of the schools indicating that they use IPD or IM in their curricula.

Categories of Innovation adopters

The categories of innovation of adopters are comprised of innovators, early

adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Based upon the survey

responses and literature review, the level of academia adoption is late majority.

The late majority category was selected due to a lack of innovation leadership,

innovation skepticism, and low levels of innovation adoption. Approximately

70% of electronic survey respondents indicated that they did not use IPD in their

curricula. Also, only 31% of respondents indicated they used IPD. However, 50%

of respondents indicated they were not aware of IPD. Four respondents did

report either having IPD-based studio electives, course integration, or IPD project

submission requirements. The phone survey revealed only 21% of schools are

considering the inclusion of IPD or IM into their curricula, although 40%

volunteered that they do encourage their use.

Innovation skepticism is expressed both in the literature review and in the survey.

Peggy Deamer of Yale University stated that, “more fundamentally the intimacy

of the design process is deeply shaken by a software (BIM) whose main attribute

is precisely to do away with that intimacy, an intimacy that is threatened by no

43

longer believing in a singular author and no longer believes in the myth of

inspiration”. (Deamer, 2010) Renee Cheng, Head of the Department of

Architecture from the University of Minnesota, stated, “…one can easily fear a

future where BIM has effectively made us too stupid to question the rules and

assumptions we are meant to control”. (Cheng, 2006) One survey respondent,

when asked, why don’t you use IPD in your curricula answered, “I try to avoid

singular platform approaches to developing design senses.” In addition, 56% of

electronic survey respondents were undecided about IPD’s ability to enhance

their design development courses.

The lack of innovation leadership is expressed by the general lack of responses

to the electronic survey. Seventy percent of electronic survey respondents

indicated they were not using IPD in their curricula, and 55% were undecided of

IPD’s ability to enhance their design development courses. James Sipes also

writes, “Landscape architects frequently work with architects, many of whom

are already using BIM”. (Sipes, pg. 24) This is echoed by Flohr, “Currently IPD and

BIM software are being developed by the software and construction industry

with American Institute of Architects at the helm, and landscape architects

44

have little to no voice in this process”. (Flohr, pg. 170) The electronic survey

results support this statement.

Participant Stages of Adoption

The five stages of adoption are comprised of knowledge, persuasion, decision,

implementation and confirmation. Based upon both the electronic and phone

survey, landscape architecture academia seems to be in the persuasion stage

of adoption. Forty-two percent of respondents reported being aware of IPD/IM,

but only 2% of respondents from the phone survey were using IPD/IM in their

curricula Thirty-one percent electronic survey respondents were using IPD,

placing them in the implementation stage. Only 29% reported having

knowledge of SIM. This would indicate that there is still a large majority of

landscape architecture academia who are not even aware of the derivatives

of IM that is most applicable to them, placing them in the knowledge stage.

Though the total range of stages, with the exception of confirmation, can be

found in the surveys, the collective statistics describe the vast majority of

respondents still hovering between the persuasion and decision stages.

45

4.0 Analysis

The introduction of IPD/IM appears to parallel that of AutoCAD. Neither was

readily accepted and embraced by the site design professions. Even though

the implementation of BIM is happening faster, it still took about 15 years for

designers to move from hand drawing to CAD. (Duetch. p. 4) Innovators saw

the need and potential for both technologies; however, the majority of the

profession was/is slow to embrace them. A healthy amount of skepticism and

resistance to new ideas is good. It forces us to carefully examine what we are

proposing and to think more critically about it. However, as Roger’s theory of

Diffusion of Innovations suggests, there is more to resistance than just Socratic

apprehension. By examining the results of the surveys conducted, it is apparent

that: 1) IPD and IM can enhance landscape architecture project delivery,

particularly in the design development phase, and 2) landscape architecture

academia represents the late majority and primarily are in the knowledge stage

of innovation adoption.

Ultimately, the premise behind the implementation of IPD and IM is to improve

the quality and efficiencies of our design processes. There is, however, a

practical importance for the implementation of such software in site design.

Paradiso of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wrote, “The digitally-

augmented environments of tomorrow will exploit a diverse architecture of

wired and wireless sensors through which user intent, context, and interactive

gesture will be dynamically extracted”. (Paradiso, pg. 345) It only makes sense

to infer that the designers of these structures and spaces will have to evolve their

design processes to accommodate the added complexities of these integrated

technologies. As a matter of pragmatism, it is becoming imperative that the

software we use in the design process has the ability to organize, display,

extrapolate, mind, and troubleshoot data concurrently. IPD and IM are the

46

inevitable response to the complexities of modern design. While some people

find the prospect of this ubiquitous future exciting, others might find the constant

connection to our spaces invasive. Marianne Peterson, from the University of

Aarhus, Department of Computer Science, wrote, “We see a danger in that

people may lose their sense of control in environments where they are

seamlessly tracked and profiled. Thus, instead of striving for technology to

become invisibly embedded in our environments, we seek to make technology

visible and remarkable [4]. After all, we want to exploit that the most intelligent

in our environments remain the people who inhabit the spaces”. (Peterson, pg.

44) Whichever support group you may fall into--the proponent, opponents, or

somewhere in between--, it is imperative that site design professionals are an

integral part of the discussion. Unfortunately, as stated by Flohr, “Currently IPD

and BIM software are being developed by the software and construction

industry with American Institute of Architects at the helm, and landscape

architects have little to no voice in this process. To move towards integrated

sustainable construction projects, faster project deliveries, and greater design

accountability, site and building development must be incorporated. Clients

realize the benefits of IPD and are demanding BIM. Landscape architects

cannot afford to be left out of the process”. (pg. 170) This sentiment is also

echoed by Sipes as he addressed IM derivatives, “If landscape architects are

not involved with developing this definition of Site Information Models (SIM) and

Land Information Models (LIM), then architects and engineers seeking to

expand their role in a project will be the ones to do so. If that happens, the

results will be an engineer’s version of Landscape Architecture or that of an

architect”. (Sipes, pg. 16)

47

5.0 Conclusion

There are many theories and principles that drive landscape architecture. In

addition to these theories and principles, computer-aided design has become

integral to the practice of the profession. Our society is evolving technological

faster today than it ever has. As our technological capabilities evolve so do the

complexities of the systems that sustain them. In order to design our future

spaces, computer-aided design will be critical. As important as the computer-

aided design, are the men and women who will be involved in its creation and

application. As new innovations evolve it is important that they are examined

and a discussed. It is important that site design teachers stay abreast of the

latest technological innovations, do not rely solely on professional practice to

lead them in software selection, and, most importantly, participate in the

conversation. For landscape architecture to remain relevant, it must embrace

and evolve its technological capabilities to meet that of its sister professions. To

thrive, landscape architecture must lead the way in the application of

innovations such as Integrated Project Delivery and Information Modeling. Max

Planck, the founder of the quantum theory, wrote “An important scientific

innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its

opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out”. What

will be the fate of landscape architecture?

A more robust study to include a survey of corollary fields would provide a more

quantifiable assessment of the landscape architecture innovation adoption

level and, I have no doubt, provide further substantiate my strong belief that

landscape architecture must embrace Integrated Project Delivery and

Information Modeling. Landscape architecture must not remain an island onto

itself!

48

49

6.0 References

Deamer, Peggy. “Autodesk Yale University BIM Symposium.” September 16, 2010.

Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 16 April 2012.

ESRI. (n.d.) Geodesign. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from

http://www.esri.com/technology-topics/geodesign/overview.html

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

National Network of Libraries of Medicine. (December 10, 1997). The Diffusion of

Innovations Model and Outreach from the National Network of Libraries of

Medicine to Native American Communities. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from

http://nnlm.gov/archive/pnr/eval/rogers.html

AIA. (n.d.). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. The American Institute of

Architects. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from

http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630.

Autodesk.(n.d.) IPD in Education. Autodesk Education Community. Retrieved

March 16, 2012, from http://bimcurriculum.autodesk.com/node/417

Building Smart Alliance. (n.d.). No title. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from

http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org/.

Business Dictionary. (n.d.) technology transfer. Business Dictionary.com.

Retrieved November 10, 2011, from

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/technology-transfer.html

50

Cheng, Renee. (2006) Suggestions for an Integrative Education.. AIA Report on

Integrated Practice, Daniel Friedman, ed., 2006.

Design Intelligence. (2011) Landscape Information Modeling. Design

Intelligence. Retrieved March 21, 2002, from

http://www.di.net/articles/archive/landscape_information_modeling/.

Deutsch, R. (2011). BIM and integrated design: Strategies for architectural

practice. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.

Flohr, T. (2011). A landscape Architect’s review of building information modeling

technology. Landscape Journal: Design, Planning, and Management of the

Land, 30(1), 169-170.

George, J. W. (2009). Classical curriculum design. Arts and Humanities in Higher

Education, 8(2), 160-179. doi:10.1177/1474022209102682

Hoffmann, Sabine H. "Diffusion of Innovations." Encyclopedia of Business In

Today's World. Ed. Charles Wankel. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009. 512-

13. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Holness, G. R. (2006). Building Information Modeling. ASHRAE Journal, 48(8), 38-

46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu. (2010). Discussion and consideration on

teaching reform of Landscape Architecture. 138-141.

doi:10.1109/ICEMT.2010.5657685

51

Leon, N. (2009). The future of computer-aided innovation.COMPUTERS IN

INDUSTRY, 60(8), 539-550. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.05.010

Marschalek, D. G. (1989). A new approach to curriculum development in

environmental design. Art Education, 42(4), 8-17.

Nahm, Y. -., & Ishikawa, H. (2006). A new 3D-CAD system for set-based

parametric design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

Technology, 29(1), 137-150. doi:10.1007/s00170-004-2213-5

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Piegl, L. A. (2004). Ten challenges in computer-aided design.COMPUTER-AIDED

DESIGN, 37(4), 461-470. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2004.08.012

Sipes, J. (2008). Integrating BIM Technology into Landscape Architecture.

Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series (LATIS), 1-49.

Smith, D. L. (1987). Integrating technology into the architectural curriculum.

Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 41(1), 4-9.

Sutherland, I. E. (1964). Sketchpad a man-machine graphical communication

system. Simulation, 2(5), R-3-R-20. doi:10.1177/003754976400200514

Wang, T. (2009). Toward a productive and creative curriculum in architecture.

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8(3), 277-293.

doi:10.1177/1474022209339961

Paradiso, Joseph A. "Sensor Architectures for Interactive Environments." 18 Vol.

Boston, MA: Springer US, 2009. 345-362. Print.

52

Petersen, Marianne. “INTERACTIVE SPACES: TOWARDS A BETTER EVERYDAY?.”

Interactions July-Aug 2005: 44-45.

53

Appendix

A. Survey

54

55

56

57

58

59

B. Abbreviations

AGC Association of General Contractors of America

AIA American Institute of Architects

AISC American Institute of Steel Construction

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASID American Society of Interior Designers

ASPE American Society of Professional Estimators

ASQ American Society for Quality

BIM Building Information Modeling

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association

CABA Contintental Automated Buildings Association

CAED College of Architecture and Environmental Design

CAD Computer-Aided Design

CaGBC Canadian Green Building Council

CERL Civil Engineering Research Laboratory

CIFE Center for Facilities and Environment

CII Construction Industry Institute

CMAA Construction Managers Association of America

COAA Construction Owners Association of America

CSI Construction Specifications Institute

CURT Construction Users Round Table

DBIA Design Build Institute of America

DPC-SIG Project Management Institute Design Procurement Construction

Specific Interest

Group

FFC National Academy of Sciences Federal Facilities Council

GSA General Services Administration

ICC International Code Council

ICF International Center for Facilities

IFMA International Facilities Managers Association

60

IM Information Modeling

IPD Integrated Project Delivery

LABOK Landscape Architecture Body of Knowledge

LCI Lean Construction Institute

MILCON Military Construction

MTS Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability

NAHB National Association of Home Builders

NASBP National Association of Surety Bond Producers

NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences

OGC Open Geospatial Consortium

OSCRE Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate

SBIC Sustainable Buildings Industry Council

SCIP Specifications Consultants in Independent Practice

SIM Site Information Modeling

SMACNA Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USGBC U.S. Green Building Council

61

C. Definitions

Building Information Modeling (BIM) A process involving the creation and

organization of the digital representation of physical and functional

characteristics of a facility

Compatibility with existing and potential needs and experiences is a perception

of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.

Complexity in terms of the degree of understanding is a perception of adoption

in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.

Computer-Aided Design creates computer models defined by geometrical

parameters that appear on a computer monitor as a three-dimensional

representation of a part or a system of parts that can be readily altered by

changing relevant parameters. Allows testing by simulating real-world

conditions to modifiy. analyze, and optimize designs.Confirmation in the stages

of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory occurs when an individual (or

other decision-making unit) seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision that

has already been made, but the individual may reverse this previous decision if

exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation.

Decision in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory occurs

when an individual (or other decision-making unit) engages in activities that

lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation.

Early Adopters, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations

theory, are the second 13.5% of the individuals in a system to adopt an

innovation. Early adopters are a more integrated part of the local system than

are innovators. Whereas innovators are cosmopolites, early adopters are

62

localites. This adopter category, more than any other, has the greatest degree

of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters

for advice and information about the innovation. This adopter category is

generally sought by change agents as a local missionary for speeding the

diffusion process. Because early adopters are not too far ahead of the average

individual in innovativeness, they serve as a role-model for many other members

of a social system. The early adopter is respected by his or her peers and

embodies successful, discrete use of new ideas. The early adopter knows that to

continue to earn esteem of colleagues and to maintain a central position in the

communication networks of the system; he or she must make judicious

innovation-decisions. The early adopter decreases uncertainty about a new

idea by adopting it and then conveying a subjective evaluation of the

innovation to near-peers through interpersonal networks.

Early Majority, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations

theory, is the third 34% of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. The

early majority adopt new ideas just before the average member of a system.

The early majority interact frequently with their peers, but seldom hold positions

of opinion leadership in a system. The early majority's unique position between

the very early and the relatively late to adopt makes them an important link in

the diffusion process. They provide interconnectedness in the system's

interpersonal networks. The early majority are one of the two most numerous

adopter categories, making up one-third of the members of a system. The early

majority may deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea.

"Be not the first by which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside," fits the

thinking of the early majority. They follow with deliberate willingness in adopting

innovations, but seldom lead.

63

Implementation in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory

occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) puts an innovation

into use. Re-invention is especially likely to occur at the implementation stage.

Information Modeling (IM) A representation of concepts, relationships,

constraints, rules, and operations to specify data semantics for a chosen domain

of discourse. It can provide sharable, stable, and organized structure of

information requirements for the domain context

Innovators, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations theory,

are the first 2.5%t of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation.

Venturesomeness is almost an obsession with innovators. This interest in new

ideas leads them out of a local circle of peer networks and into more

cosmopolite social relationships. Communication patterns and friendships

among a clique of innovators are common, even though the geographical

distance between the innovators may be considerable. Being an innovator has

several prerequisites. Control of substantial financial resources is helpful to

absorb the possible loss from an unprofitable innovation. The ability to

understand and apply complex technical knowledge is also needed. The

innovator must be able to cope with a high degree of uncertainty about an

innovation at the time of adoption. While an innovator may not be respected

by the other members of a social system, the innovator plays an important role

in the diffusion process-- that of launching the new idea in the system by

importing the innovation from outside the system's boundaries. Thus, the

innovator plays a gatekeeping role in the flow of new ideas into a system.

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) A collaborative alliance of people, systems,

business structures and practices into a process that harnesses the talents and

insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner,

64

reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design,

fabrication, and construction

Knowledge in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory

occurs when an individual (or other decision making unit) learns of the

innovation's existence and gains some understanding of how it functions

Laggards, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations theory, are

the last 16% of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. They possess

almost no opinion leadership. Laggards are the most localite in their outlook of

all adopter categories; many are near isolates in the social networks of their

system. The point of reference for the laggard is the past. Decisions are often

made in terms of what has been done previously. Laggards tend to be

suspicious of innovations and change agents. Resistance to innovations on the

part of laggards may be entirely rational from the laggard's viewpoint as their

resources are limited and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail

before they can adopt.

Late Majority, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations theory,

is the fourth (next to last) 34% of the individuals in a system to adopt an

innovation. The late majority adopt new ideas just after the average member of

a system. Like the early majority, the late majority make up one-third of the

members of a system. Adoption may be the result of increasing network

pressures from peers. Innovations are approached with a skeptical and cautious

air, and the late majority do not adopt until most others in their system have

done so. The weight of system norms must definitely favor an innovation before

the late majority are convinced. The pressure of peers is necessary to motivate

adoption. Their relatively scarce resources mean that most of the uncertainty

about a new idea must be removed before the late majority feel that it is safe to

adopt.

65

Observability or degree to which an innovation or its results are observable is a

perception of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory. The hypothesis is

that if individuals see the success of an innovation they are more likely to adopt

it.

Persuasion in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory occurs

when an individual (or other decision-making unit) forms a favorable or

unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.

Relative advantage of the innovation in comparison to existing solutions and

practices is a perception of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.

Site Information Modeling (SIM) A process involving the creation and

organization of a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics

of the land or site

Trialability, that is, to experience the innovation to a certain degree and time

periodais a perception of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.

66

D. Organization Overview

7group Integrative Design, green building, and Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design consultants.

American Institute of Architects (AIA) The International Clearinghouse for

Interoperability Standards and Activities in the Architecture, Engineering,

Construction and Real Estate industries.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Has taken an active role in

pioneering interoperability and BIM through developing the CIS/2 standard and

promoting its use in the structural steel design, detailing, fabrication, and

construction process. Actively engages its members and the Architecture,

Engineering, and Construction community at large to ensure that structural steel

is a leader in adoption of interoperability and BIM technology.

American Society for Quality (ASQ) ASQ’s Design and Construction Division actively

pursues a certification for Quality Managers in design and construction and

would like to include BIM and interoperability to the knowledge required of

Quality Managers in these disciplines.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) The Architectural Engineering Institute of

ASCE deals with building information models.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Develops and identifies initiatives and opportunities presented by

interoperability, BIM, and related topics affecting the HVA&R industry and

ASHRAE interests. Develops informational and educational programs on BIM and

interoperability for ASHRAE members.

67

American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) A community of people driven by a

common love for design and committed to the belief that interior design, as a

service to people, is a powerful, multi-faceted profession that can positively

change people's lives. Through education, knowledge sharing, advocacy,

community building and outreach, the Society strives to advance the interior

design profession and, in the process, to demonstrate and celebrate the power

of design to positively change people's lives. Its more than 30,000 members

engage in a variety of professional programs and activities through a network of

48 chapters throughout the United States and Canada.

American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE) All estimating professionals may

want to get in on the BIM discussion affecting their work. ASPE Chapters will be

presenting speakers and programs to facilitate the move towards BIM.

Association of General Contractors of America (AGC) - BIMForum BIMForum is the

AGC's task force on Building Information Modeling. BIMForum's 200+ members

collaborate virtually via the online forum.

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International) An international

federation of more than 100 local associations and affiliated organizations.

Founded in 1907, its 16,500-plus members own or manage more than nine billion

square feet of commercial properties. BOMA International’s mission is to

enhance the human, intellectual and physical assets of the commercial real

estate industry through advocacy, education, research, standards and

information.

Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC) Leads and accelerates the

transformation to high-performing, healthy green buildings, homes and

communities throughout Canada.

68

Center for Facilities and Environment (CIFE) CIFE and Stanford have long been

pioneers in collaborative design, integrated practice, and BIM in general.

College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED) Located at Kent State

and offers BIM to students and promotes its use while obtaining a degree.

Construction Industry Institute (CII) Focuses its efforts on the business needs of its

members, which includes many of the largest construction-related organizations

and major facility owners. BIM is beginning to show up on their radar screen and,

therefore, into projects of CII. The emphasis of CII will be toward the strategic

business approach to BIM rather than the technology.

Construction Managers Association of America (CMAA) North America’s only

organization dedicated exclusively to the interests of professional Construction

and Program Management. The Association was formed in 1982. Current

membership is more than 9,400, including individual CM/PM construction and

program management practitioners, corporate members, and construction

owners in both public and private sectors, along with academic and associate

members. CMAA has 28 regional chapters and 42 student chapters at colleges

and universities nationwide.

Construction Owners Association of America (COAA) Committed to accomplishing

interoperability and served as one of the sponsors of the McGraw-Hill

Interoperability Study that was recently released. They educate members

through conference education programs and articles in their magazine.

Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Develops and promulgates the formats

and standards that organize project and product specifications and

information. With the development of OmniClass and the IFDLibrary, CSI along

69

with CSC is focused on supporting interoperability by providing a complete and

consistent open schema for all information used in the building process.

Construction Users Round Table (CURT) CURT’s mission is to create competitive

advantage for construction users. CURT is providing aggressive leadership on

business issues that promote excellence in the creation of capital assets and

supports BIM/VDC implementation in accord with this direction. CURT is in the

third year of an arrangement with CIFE and GSA in conducting a VDC Usage

Survey in order to gain business metrics around VDC implementation. Further

CURT has a committee focused on process transformation involving various

sectors of the industry targeting improved productivity. CURT is working in

partnership with AIA and AGC through the 3xPT initiative driving change in the

industry toward process transformation.

Contintental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) A not-for-profit industry

association that promotes advanced technologies for the automation of homes

and buildings in North America.

Design Build Institute of America (DBIA) Promotes the value of design-build project

delivery and teaches the effective integration of design and construction

services to ensure success for owners and design and construction practitioners.

FIATECH Non-profit consortium working with technologies to support fully

integrated and automated project processes.

General Services Administration (GSA) First government organization to lead the US

Government into BIM and with a primary role in promoting BIM in the entire

industry. They remain today a leader in the initiative, continually breaking new

ground.

70

Georgia Tech AEC Integration Lab The Digital Building Laboratory is an overlay

organization that draws faculty and students from various academic units at

Georgia Tech. It is a consortium of faculty and graduate students from

Architecture, Computing, Building Construction, Civil Engineering that work in

building-related areas. It includes the staff and external relations of two current

organizations in College of Architecture, the AEC Integration Lab and the

IMAGINE Lab. The Digital Building Laboratory plans to become one of the

leading building-related research organizations in the US. It expects to build a

different set of partners that will collaborate in the development that not only

benefits the members of the DBL, but also the general impacts of construction to

all owners and clients. It draws on different types of expertise and can

undertake initiatives not accessible to other centers.

Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability (MTS) Dedicates its entire

operation to raising awareness of the positive impact that manufacturing,

promoting, and purchasing sustainable product choices has on every aspect of

our daily lives.

International Center for Facilities (ICF) Ottawa Improves the functionality, suitability

and quality of the places where people work and live, and of other constructed

assets, by focusing in particular on the development of appropriate national

and international standards.

International Code Council (ICC) - SMARTcodes™ Automate compliance checking

with building regulations, codes, standards, etc. which includes significant work

on a dictionary that can serve as a basis for other dictionary work in the US and

globally, coordination with model checking software entities and working with

BIM software developers to understand what information is needed in a BIM to

make it checkable for compliance.

71

International Facilities Managers Association (IFMA) The world’s largest and most

widely recognized international association for professional facility managers,

supporting more than 22,655 members in 78 countries.Lean Construction Institute

(LCI) Focused on reducing waste in the industry. Provides research to develop

knowledge regarding project based production management in the design,

engineering, and construction of capital facilities.

National Academy of Sciences Federal Facilities Council (FFC) Coordinates the

Federal agencies and provides educational opportunities to all.

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Large builders of homes transforming

to BIM to optimize their processes and provide agility in delivering customized

needs of their customers.

National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) Founded in 1942, NASBP is the

association of and resource for surety bond producers and allied professionals.

NASBP producers specialize in providing surety bonds for construction contracts

and other purposes to companies and individuals needing the assurance

offered by surety bonds. NASBP producers engage in contract and commercial

surety production throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and a

number of countries.

The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) A non-profit, non-governmental

organization that successfully brings together representatives of government,

the professions, industry, labor and consumer interests, and regulatory agencies

to focus on the identification and resolution of problems and potential problems

that hamper the construction of safe, affordable structures for housing,

commerce and industry throughout the United States.

72

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Helping the World to Communicate

Geographically. Provides industry standards to the International Organization for

Standardization. Recognized test bed approach.

Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) A not-for-profit, membership

funded, neutral consortium that exists to facilitate collaboration on standardized

data exchange.

PRO IT: Finnish Consortium of Modelers The objective of the broad-based Pro IT

development project, initiated by the Confederation of Finnish Construction

Industries, was to define a national data management approach and

guidelines for the construction process based on product modeling. The project

was in operation in 2002 – 2005.

Project Management Institute Design Procurement Construction Specific Interest Group

(DPC-SIG) An international organization with mission to break down barriers that

fragment the profession, improve the understanding of capital project

management, promote collaboration between capital project stakeholders,

and contribute to the professional development of our membership.

Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA)

Participates in the effort to achieve wide acceptance of open standard IFC's

and technologically advanced tools to enable and promote growth of

Integrated Practice, where efficient collaboration among disciplines can lead

to goals of improved productivity and the reduction of errors and waste in the

construction process. Assist in the dissemination of information on IFC's, BIM and

the Integrated Practice to SMACNA contractors and the entire construction

community.

73

Specifications Consultants in Independent Practice (SCIP) A nationwide technical

resource organization that aids design firms, agencies, facility managers, and

manufacturers in acquiring specifications from qualified writers, and allows

independent specifiers to enhance their professionalism by sharing techniques

and industry developments. Widely regarded as the voice of the specifier

community, SCIP membership includes specifications consultants and design

firm specifiers.

Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC) An independent, non-profit 501 (c)(3)

organization and a pioneer advocate of the whole building approach to

sustainable facilities. Founded in 1980 as the Passive Solar Industries Council by

the major building trade groups, large corporations, small businesses, and

individual practitioners who recognized that energy and resource efficient

design and construction are imperative to a sustainable built environment.

The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) Only organization that defines,

teaches, and promotes best practices in design-build. Design-build is an

integrated approach that delivers design and construction services under one

contract with a single point of responsibility. Owners select design-build to

achieve best value while meeting schedule, cost and quality goals.

U.S. Air Force Building Information Modeling for MILCON Transformation The Marine

Corps' Military Construction (MILCON) program covers the minor construction of

facilities and structures over the minimum limit as authorized by Congress.

U.S. Army - Civil Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) The Corps of Engineers with

the support of their laboratories are transforming to the use of BIM and is a

primary player in the industry transformation with products such as Construction

Operations Building Information Exchange.

74

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) A leader among government agencies and pioneered

the linking of mission to facilities and use of facility information during the

operations and sustainment phases of the lifecycle.

75

E. Survey Results

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

F. Phone Survey

83

84

G. Question Matrix

85

H. Word Cloud

86

Acknowledgements

I would be remiss, not to mention the many people who assisted me in the research

and completion of this paper. I would like to extend thanks to, Perry Howard, Kofi

Boone, Gary Clay, and Fernando Magallanes. I would also like to extend a special

thanks to Barbara Harrison and Manuel Marrero for their support, patience, and

unconditional love given me throughout my life. Thank you all.

87