by Michael Tardif, Assoc. AIA
Contributing Editor

Summary: The research for this column generates far more material than can be accommodated in a series of brief monthly articles. This month, we take a break from case studies of firms implementing building information modeling (BIM) to underscore three significant trends that are emerging from our interviews.

1. Business focus
A generation ago, the transition from paper to CAD was characterized by a herd mentality. Many architecture firm leaders, whether early or late adopters, regarded the transition to CAD as inevitable and gave little thought to how the technology would affect their firms’ design processes, project team workflow, or profitability. Few firms laid out a strategic plan for CAD implementation that included an explicit statement of goals, benchmarks against which progress toward those goals could be measured, and a comprehensive assessment of the resources needed to achieve them: employee training, hardware and software, and money. Many firm leaders remain unable, more than 20 years later, to state with any confidence that CAD has improved the way they design buildings, serve their clients, or manage their projects. And as for the impact of CAD on the bottom line … well, let’s not even go there.

Many firms today similarly regard the transition from CAD to BIM as inevitable, but some firms are taking a far more strategic approach this time around, and those firms appear to be realizing significant, measurable benefits

Many firms today similarly regard the transition from CAD to BIM as inevitable, but some firms are taking a far more strategic approach this time around, and those firms appear to be realizing significant, measurable benefits. These strategic thinkers do not focus on technology first. Rather, they take a close look at what they do, how they do it, and how they might do it better. Then they analyze the available BIM technologies and try to assess—either formally or informally—which technologies can best support their design and business objectives. At the end of the day, the leaders of these firms are able to draw a much clearer line between their investment in BIM technology and the impact of the investment on their design processes, business goals, and profitability. Somewhat surprisingly, the firms realizing measurable gains from BIM do not seem to fit any conventional profile of size, design or practice specialty, service delivery model, or firm culture. Rather, the common denominator for success appears to be an eyes-wide-open, cool-headed, and strategic approach to implementation. Strategic planning also enables a firm to document and test early assumptions and adjust their strategic approach as the firm’s collective knowledge increases.

One might guess that a firm such as FOX Architects of McLean, Va., with a substantial volume of office building base-building design work, would be a good candidate for making productive use of BIM—and they have. Like many early adopters, they have a vision of a collaborative work environment where building information can be exchanged routinely and frequently throughout the design and construction process among the entire design and construction team, including consultants, contractors, and owners. In the meantime, they have discovered an early, tangible benefit of BIM: improved team communication through cost-effective 3D visualization. The firm has long had internal 3D visualization capabilities. But the time and cost of 3D visualization as a separate process rendered it (pun intended) impractical for routine use throughout all design phases of every project. BIM allows FOX to integrate 3D visualization directly into its design development process, enabling the firm to generate detailed, “constructable” 3D visualizations from the model at a marginal additional cost. Being able to include 3D drawings in a design development set of drawings greatly enhances FOX’s ability to communicate their design intent early to everyone—clients, consultants, and contractors. The firm plans to leverage this new ability as much as it can as it continues to move toward a collaborative electronic information exchange environment.

FOX Architects has discovered an early, tangible benefit of BIM: improved team communication through cost-effective 3D visualization

A firm specializing in the historic preservation of theaters and opera houses might seem like an unlikely candidate for early BIM adoption. Martinez & Johnson Architects of Washington, D.C., is linking two independent but related technologies—3D laser scanning and BIM—to streamline the tedious and non-value-added process of documenting existing conditions and improve the quality of their high-value-added design deliverables. In Rockville, Md., project-management specialists OLBN Architectural Services, Inc., have learned how to extract large volumes of detailed information from BIM models quickly, elevating their feasibility-study and planning services to a quality/service level that is very difficult for competitors to match. And in Pasadena, Calif., Onuma, Inc., has spent 10 years developing and refining its own suite of BIM tools—based entirely on open standards and open-source software—to pull the benefits of BIM forward into the earliest programming and planning stages of complex projects. The common thread in the experience of these four firms is that they have implemented BIM technology not for its own sake but to position themselves as the leaders in their respective markets.

2. Liability concerns
Professional liability insurers are understandably concerned about the potential risks of building information modeling and are diligently and prudently warning their insureds about these potential risks. The key word here is “potential.” As with any new technology or business practice, there is very little case law (a record of lawsuits and court judgments) related to BIM that can be used to assess future risks. One can reasonably infer, however, that any new technology designed to foster greater information exchange is likely to pose inherently greater risks for licensed design professionals who are legally liable for their professional services.

Interestingly, however, many firms—despite warnings from their insurers and attorneys—are making a conscious decision to go ahead and implement BIM on projects and to exchange BIM information with other members of their project teams. Some are taking steps to minimize their risk through mutual indemnification agreements that specifically define the responsibilities of parties engaging in electronic information exchange, an effort supported by two new AIA contract documents.

Some firms are taking steps to minimize their risk through mutual indemnification agreements that specifically define the responsibilities of parties engaging in electronic information exchange, an effort supported by two new AIA contract documents

Leaders of firms that are moving ahead with electronic exchange of building information—despite the risks and with or without the benefit of indemnification agreements—typically cite two reasons for doing so. Many recall similar warnings of a generation ago to limit the scope of their construction phase services to “observation and review for conformance to design intent only,” a risk-mitigation measure now widely perceived as having eroded the stature of architects in the construction industry and giving birth to the new, lucrative, and limited-liability discipline of construction management. There is also a widely shared belief among BIM adopters that the enhanced coordination and “clash detection” features of BIM, and the closer cooperation and coordination among project team members that the use of BIM fosters, will result in fewer errors and omissions and therefore lower risk. After all, the argument goes, just how much confidence does anyone have in the quality and integrity of the CAD construction documents they now issue?

It is too early to know whether the firms in the vanguard of electronic information exchange are charting a wise or foolish course, but the trend among architects willing to assume the risk is unmistakable.

3. Contractors taking the lead
More and more contractors are finding building information models useful to streamline the construction process, identify interferences, resolve the design of non-typical details, and prepare shop drawings. But overwhelmingly, the deliverables contractors receive from design teams are still largely 2D paper drawings or, less commonly, 2D CAD files, either because the design firms have not yet adopted BIM or are reluctant to share their BIM models.

A growing number of construction firms—all large companies—are making the strategic decision to build their own BIM models in-house

A growing number of construction firms—all large companies—are making the strategic decision to build their own BIM models in-house. This is a potentially worrisome trend for architects. When one explores the underlying reasons for this trend, however, there is less cause for alarm. Construction firms appear to have little or no desire to usurp the role of the architect by offering design services. Instead, like the architecture firms highlighted above, they are using BIM to do what they do better—build buildings. Admittedly, creating a BIM model after the building has been designed is grossly inefficient—and at odds with the collaborative electronic information exchange that BIM is intended to foster. But these construction firms apparently think that the added cost of creating their own models can be recouped—profitably—in construction cost savings. As these construction firms increasingly receive information models from design teams, the incentives to create their own models will fade. We can expect, however, that these BIM-savvy construction firms will be poised to add a great deal of construction-related information to BIM models, forging another link in the building information lifecycle chain.

Copyright 2007 Michael Tardif. Reprinted with permission.