by Michael Tardif, Assoc. AIA
Contributing Editor

Summary: Building information modeling (BIM) is at the heart of the changes taking place throughout the building industry today, but the scope of innovation extends far beyond technology. In 2004, the AIA Technology in Architectural Practice advisory group identified three “inevitable technologies” that would drive innovation in the 21st century: collaboration, interoperability, and BIM. As the spring 2008 conference season comes to a close, that four-year-old forecast—and, in particular, the equal weight given to all three—is looking more and more prescient. “BIM” may have been in the title of many conference sessions this year, but the content of most BIM presentations invariably addressed—in equal measure—the importance of collaboration and interoperability as well as modeling.

One of TAP’s three “inevitable” technologies—collaboration—is not a technology at all. But of the three, it is probably the most important, with the greatest potential for transforming the practice of architecture and the costly, inefficient, and litigious way in which most buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and operated throughout their useful lives.

Understanding collaboration
It is now an accepted axiom that successful implementation of building information modeling depends on collaboration of all parties in a project: owner, architect, engineers, contractors, and subcontractors. One might even say that in the absence of meaningful collaboration, BIM cannot be implemented effectively. But although the symbiotic relationship between BIM and collaboration is generally taken for granted, it is not very well understood. Perhaps by understanding it better, we can make it happen more deliberately, and even accelerate the transformation of design and business practices.

• Early participation by constructors
• Design of major building systems in parallel
• Co-location of multidisciplinary teamsBuildings have always been the result of many people working together. But true collaboration has been hampered by a sequential series of formal steps that have evolved over time to minimize the risk of individual participants for specific acts, tasks, or deliverables, often at the expense of minimizing the overall risk of the entire project for all participants. Three characteristics of successful collaboration in a BIM environment distinguish it from these earlier practices:

• Early participation by constructors—general contractors and major building system subcontractors—in the design process
• The design of major building systems—architecture, structure, and MEP—in parallel instead of in sequence
• Co-location of multidisciplinary design and construction teams.

What is it about BIM technology that drives this type of collaboration? All three depend, in part, on the ability of the participants to develop and exchange digital design data rapidly. But the electronic exchange of information is only part of the story. The other part—largely undocumented—is MTE (mouth-to-ear) communication and information exchange.

“Federated” professional judgment
The immediate benefits of BIM reported by early implementers—resolution of physical interferences (“clash detection”) and strategic constructability planning—are typically achieved in an environment of symbiotic electronic and verbal communication. A federated building information model (one that includes architectural, structural, and mechanical systems) can highlight clashes among major building systems, but, because of the many factors involved in the decision, current BIM software cannot decide how to fix the problem. It can be resolved only by an exercise of “federated” professional judgment: the architect, structural engineer, and mechanical engineer have to decide together whether a beam or a duct is going to be moved.

Verbal, face-to-face communication is the most efficient way to leverage the information that the building information model provides

Often, the contractor’s knowledge about constructability and sequence is an important factor in the decision. What BIM design and construction teams have discovered is that verbal, face-to-face communication is the most efficient way to leverage the information that the building information model provides. This is a craft process, not a technological one; experts craft a solution to a specific problem by applying their collective knowledge and judgment to specific circumstances. The resulting decision may be embodied in the building information model, but the reasons for the decision may or may not be documented. If the reasons are documented, the documentation is typically recorded elsewhere; that knowledge is impossible to embody in the building information model itself.

So why now?
There is nothing about earlier design technologies, including pencil and paper, that prevented architects, engineers, and constructors from collaborating early in the design process, or working together in a single room. So why now? It appears that the apparent nature of information generated by a building information model exponentially increases the value of MTE communication. Three-dimensional, visual expression of a building design facilitates joint decision making because all participants can agree more readily on the facts.

Three-dimensional, visual expression of a building design facilitates joint decision-making because all participants can agree more readily on the facts

In a 2D working environment, an interference problem could only be inferred from the two-dimensional drawings. A clash detected by one design professional would first have to be verified by everyone concerned, who would have to go through the same exercise of visualizing the problem in their own heads. Even if everyone were able to complete the exercise in a real-time collaborative environment, none of the participants could be assured that they have all inferred the exact same thing. For complex problems, it was almost impossible for the participants to trust that they shared a common understanding.

The symbiotic relationship between electronic and verbal communication and the broad implications of the greater transparency of BIM information as it relates to “trust” should not be overlooked. These, and not technology alone, are the foundations upon which new business processes, new contractual relationships, and new technologies will be built.

Copyright © Michael Tardif, 2008