<%BANNER%>

Evaluating the Impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on Construction

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024253/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluating the Impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on Construction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (230 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Suermann, Patrick
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aia, benchmarking, bim, buildingsmart, gsa, kpis, milcon, nbims, ops, productivity, tap, usace, usaf, uscg, usn, va
Design, Construction, and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) ON CONSTRUCTION Patrick C. Suermann, Maj, USAF, P.E. (352) 214-1340 Building Construction Supervisory chair: R. Raymond Issa, Ph.D, J.D., P.E. Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 The purpose of this research was to evaluate the impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on construction. BIM is a new approach used in the architecture, engineering, construction, and ownership phases of the facility lifecycle whereby virtual building modeling is employed. This research collected data through three survey iterations, on-site research at two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts where pilot BIM projects were designed, and lastly statistical analysis, namely the student's T-test, to establish benchmarks for standard project types and determine quantitative construction productivity impact from the BIM-based designs. The dissertation?s contribution to the industry and the nation is that the method used to determine statistical construction productivity impact was recommended for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their strategic planning document for BIM implementation, resulting in a new process to be required for analysis on all $20 Billion of military construction the USACE accomplishes annually.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patrick Suermann.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Flood, Ian.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024253:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024253/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluating the Impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on Construction
Physical Description: 1 online resource (230 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Suermann, Patrick
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aia, benchmarking, bim, buildingsmart, gsa, kpis, milcon, nbims, ops, productivity, tap, usace, usaf, uscg, usn, va
Design, Construction, and Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Design, Construction, and Planning Doctorate thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) ON CONSTRUCTION Patrick C. Suermann, Maj, USAF, P.E. (352) 214-1340 Building Construction Supervisory chair: R. Raymond Issa, Ph.D, J.D., P.E. Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 The purpose of this research was to evaluate the impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on construction. BIM is a new approach used in the architecture, engineering, construction, and ownership phases of the facility lifecycle whereby virtual building modeling is employed. This research collected data through three survey iterations, on-site research at two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts where pilot BIM projects were designed, and lastly statistical analysis, namely the student's T-test, to establish benchmarks for standard project types and determine quantitative construction productivity impact from the BIM-based designs. The dissertation?s contribution to the industry and the nation is that the method used to determine statistical construction productivity impact was recommended for use by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their strategic planning document for BIM implementation, resulting in a new process to be required for analysis on all $20 Billion of military construction the USACE accomplishes annually.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patrick Suermann.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Flood, Ian.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024253:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) ON CONSTRUCTION By PATRICK C. SUERMANN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Patrick C. Suermann

PAGE 3

3 You say it best, when you say nothing at all.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank many people for their help throughout the course of my research and overall doctoral work For those reading this, consider yourself thanked for providing me the ultimate compliment: devoting time to reading the fruits of my labor. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the U.S. Air F orce, M.E. Rinker, Sr., the Rinker family, and the Rinker Professor, Dr. Raymond Issa. I am extremely grateful for Dr. Issas tireless support and selfless mentoring since I met him in July of 2005 (Yes, even before I started my doctoral program). Through the Rinker Scholar Fellowship, I have been afforded the opportunity to improve my research through the generous financial backing I have received from the Rinker School and the Rinker Foundation. I am extremely grateful to my committee members Dr. Ian Fl ood, Dr. Svetlana Olbina, Dr. Randy Chow, and Mr. Deke Smith, FAIA for their patience, guidance, and direction. They have given generously with their valuable and limited time. Specifically, Deke Smith brought me under his wing and taught me how to navig ate my way through the maze and hurdles of federal design and construction. I owe much of my success to Deke, for it was his recommendation that allowed me to get my foot in the door on many occasions. I am also very appreciative of all those who helped me in the course of my research: Colonel Greg Seely, Dr. Jim Pocock, Michael Tardif, Van Woods, John Herem, Wayne Stiles, Brenda Moriarty, Bruce Pastorini, Jim McGuire, Haskell Barker, Steve Spangler, Brian Huston, John Sullivan, Russ Manning, Skip Aldri ch, Dean McCarns, Kurt Maldovan, Lt Col Jay Beam, and many, many more.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ 10 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 21 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 23 Background .................................................................................................................................. 23 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 23 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 24 Rationale and Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 25 Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................................. 25 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 26 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 26 Innovation and Technology in the United States Federal Government ........................... 26 International View of BIM: The United Kingdom ........................................................... 27 BIM Applications and Research ......................................................................................... 31 Stanfords Center for Integrated Facil ity Engineering (CIFE) .................................. 31 Top criteria for BIM solutions: survey results .......................................................... 36 Construction Management Association of America (CMA A) survey of owners .... 42 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory .................................................................... 44 National BIM Standard Interactive Capability Maturity Model (NBI MS I CMM) ........................................................................................................................ 45 Federal Historical Perspective on the Facility Lifecycle .......................................................... 46 The General Services Administration ................................................................................ 49 GSA: Our National BIM Program: Highlights from 2006 .................................. 51 GSA: 2006 Pilot Project Successes: Building Information Modeling ................ 55 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................... 60 USACE Metrics: The Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) program ............ 61 MILCON Transformation ............................................................................................ 64 The USACE BIM Road Map ...................................................................................... 65 USACE Road Map Timeline ....................................................................................... 68 USACE BIM Road Map Appendixes ......................................................................... 69 USACE BIM in the field ............................................................................................. 73 USACE BIM in FM: The COBIE i nitiative .............................................................. 74 The U.S. Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 77 The U.S. Air Force ............................................................................................................... 87

PAGE 6

6 GeoBa se: the USAF initiative to manage geospatial installation data .................... 87 The USAF metric initiative for MILCON excellence: Ribbon Cutter Metrics ... 88 Dynamic Prototyping ................................................................................................... 90 CENTCOMM HQ, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida: USAF BIM pioneer ........... 91 The U.S. Navy ...................................................................................................................... 92 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 93 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 94 Research Impetus ........................................................................................................................ 94 Methodology................................................................................................................................ 96 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 96 Research Phase I: Observation .................................................................................................. 97 Survey i terations #1 and #2: w eb -based ............................................................................ 99 Survey s pecifics ................................................................................................................. 102 Survey i teration #3: BIM4Builders c onference a ttendees ......................................... 110 Research Phase II: Orientation ................................................................................................ 110 Research Phase III: Decision ................................................................................................... 111 Research Phase IV: Action ...................................................................................................... 112 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 113 Phase I: Observe ................................................................................................................... 113 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 113 Survey #1............................................................................................................................ 113 Part I: Basic Demographic Information ............................................................... 114 Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs ................................................................................ 117 Part III: Ranking KPIs ........................................................................................... 119 Part IV: Comments ................................................................................................ 120 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 121 Survey #2............................................................................................................................ 122 Part I: Basic Demographic Information ............................................................... 122 Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs ................................................................................ 125 Part III: Ranking KPIs ........................................................................................... 127 Part IV: Free Answer ............................................................................................. 128 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 129 Survey #3............................................................................................................................ 131 Part I: Basic Demographic Information ............................................................... 131 Part II: Ranking Key Performance Indicators ..................................................... 132 Part I II: BIM Definition ........................................................................................ 134 Phase II: Orient ..................................................................................................................... 135 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (CENWD), Seattle District (NWS) ............................................................................................................................. 135 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 135 Qualitative data ........................................................................................................... 136 Interview data analysis ............................................................................................... 143 Seattle interview #1: Bruce Hale .............................................................................. 1 43

PAGE 7

7 Seattle interview #2: Van Woods ............................................................................. 145 Seattle interview #3: Thomas Poole ......................................................................... 147 Seattle interview #4: John Herem ............................................................................ 148 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) rating ............................................................... 150 Quantitative data ........................................................................................................ 151 Quality ......................................................................................................................... 153 On Time compl etion .................................................................................................. 154 Units/manhour ............................................................................................................ 154 Cost ............................................................................................................................. 154 Cost/SF ........................................................................................................................ 155 Safety .......................................................................................................................... 155 Revised statistical approach ....................................................................................... 156 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Grea t Lakes and Ohio River Division (CELRD), Louisville District (LRL) ............................................................................................... 156 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 156 Qualitative data ........................................................................................................... 157 Interview data analysis ............................................................................................... 163 Louisville interview #1: Larry Cozine ..................................................................... 164 Louisville interview #2: Brian Huston..................................................................... 169 Louisville interview #3: Shenita McConis .............................................................. 175 Louisville interview #4: Rosemary Gilbertson ....................................................... 180 Louisville interview #5: Fred Grant ......................................................................... 182 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) rating ............................................................... 183 Quantitative data ........................................................................................................ 185 U.S. Coast Guard NESU, Charleston ............................................................................ 187 5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 190 Phase III: Decide .................................................................................................................. 190 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 190 General Information on Statistical Modeling used in Co nstruction ............................... 190 Benchmarking as a means for productivity improvement ....................................... 191 Benchmarking and metrics in international construction r esearch ......................... 191 The Resident Management System (RMS) and Consolidated RMS (C RMS) ............. 193 Establishing the baseline ............................................................................................ 193 Metrics for construction productivity the USACE Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) program ...................................................................................... 194 CCG Critique ..................................................................................................................... 197 CCG comparison and discussion ............................................................................... 199 Comparing the BIM projects ..................................................................................... 200 Discussion Louisville BIM pr oject ........................................................................ 203 Discussion Seattle BIM project .............................................................................. 206 Further statistical analysis .......................................................................................... 207 Results ................................................................................................................................ 207 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 208 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 210

PAGE 8

8 6 FUTURE WORK ...................................................................................................................... 214 Phase IV: Act ........................................................................................................................ 214 Future Research ................................................................................................................. 214 A S imple Plan for Implementing Benchmarking to Evaluate MILCON Productivity Improvement in the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force .................................................... 215 Step 1 ........................................................................................................................... 215 Step 2 ........................................................................................................................... 216 Step 3 ........................................................................................................................... 216 Step 4 ........................................................................................................................... 216 A Simple Plan for Imple menting the NBIMS I -CMM .................................................... 217 Step 1 ........................................................................................................................... 217 Step 2 ........................................................................................................................... 217 Step 3 ........................................................................................................................... 218 Step 4 ........................................................................................................................... 218 Recommendations for Future Study or Implementation ................................................. 218 Benefits of Implementation ............................................................................................... 219 Final Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 220 APPENDIX A USACE REALIGNMENT/ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTERS OF STANDARDIZATION ............................................................................................................ 222 B SURVEY ITERATION #3: BIM4BUILDERS HARD COPY SURVEY ....................... 223 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 224 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 229

PAGE 9

9 LI ST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Metrics .............................................................................. 111

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 CIFE Survey Results: Reasons for not using VDC ................................................................. 32 2 2 CIFE VDC Survey Results: Respondents not using VDC on projects ................................... 32 2 3 CIFE VDC Survey Results: Business Purposes for VDC at Individual Organizations ..... 33 2 4 CIFE VDC Survey Results: Perceived value to four parties from diffe rent points of view ....................................................................................................................................... 34 2 5 CIFE VDC Survey Results: In which project phases did you make significant progress? ............................................................................................................................... 35 2 6 AECb ytes Survey, The stand alone criteria, ranked according to their order of importance for all the respondents ...................................................................................... 37 2 7 AECbytes Survey, Professional Role of Respondents .......................................................... 38 2 8 AECbytes Survey, Disciplines Practiced by Respondents Firms (multiple choices allowed) ................................................................................................................................. 39 2 9 AECbytes, BIM Solutions currently Being Us ed or Evaluated (multiple choices allowed) and 2008 McGraw Hill Awareness of BIM related tools .............................. 40 2 10 GSA: Projects using BIM for spatial program validation ................................................. 52 2 11 GSA: [GSA] Innovates process change in space measurement ........................................ 54 2 12 GSA: Incorporating design expertise Note: Solibri Model Checker used i n screen capture of te nant stacking reports .............................................................................. 54 2 13 GSA: Automatically generate a BIM Report ..................................................................... 55 2 14 GSA: 3 D Laser Scann ing Pilot Project benefits and details ............................................ 57 2 15 GSA: Progression of 3 D Laser Scanning D ata ..................................................................... 57 2 16 GSA: Example of 4 D Phas ing improving visualization and planning for temporary tenant housing during renovation of IRS facility ................................................................. 58 2 17 GSA: Energy Performance Pilot Project screen captures ...................................................... 59 2 18 GSA: Circulation Validations: Collaboration/Expertise ..................................................... 60 2 19 Project CCG Metrics, Corps -wide, as of January 22, 2009 ................................................... 62

PAGE 11

11 2 20 USACE BIM Road Map: Short term Plan for implementing BIM with Milestones .......... 70 2 21 USACE BIM Road Map: Data set evolutio n graphic ............................................................ 71 2 22 USCAE BIM Road Map: Example workflow used by Louisville BIM design team .......... 72 2 23 Comprehensive and rank order results from FFC, bSA, and USACE BIM Information Exchange Demonst ration in July 2008 ............................................................................... 76 2 24 OPS I -CMM Score for USCG 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award ................................................. 78 2 25 OPS I -CMM Score for work with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGS) for 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award .................................................................................................................... 78 2 26 Various, Integrated Information Conglomerated through OPS ............................................. 80 2 27 USCG Organizational Transformation to Horizontal Cross -Functional Alignment ............ 81 2 28 USCG Process Reengineering to Vertical Value Chain Ali gnment ...................................... 82 2 29 USCG CAMP Application: Various screen shots of integrated geospatial and facility level views .............................................................................................................................. 83 2 30 USCG Stepped Str ategy of Data Collec tion and Modeling ................................................... 84 2 31 Onuma Planning Systems, Inc.: Automatic BIM Generation from Program Requirements from multiple users via the web .................................................................. 85 2 32 Onuma Planning Systems, Inc.: Multiple Benefits from CAMP with abilities for reporting, geospatial awareness, and coordination .............................................................. 86 2 33 Onuma Plann ing Systems, Inc.: New Forms of Collaboration and/or Partnering as architects, software developers, and real estate manage ...................................................... 8 6 2 34 FY09 Ribbon Cutter Criteria Categories and Subcategories .............................................. 89 2 35 New JICCENT facility and future HQ CENTCOMM facility location on MacDill Air Force Base, Florida ................................................................................................................ 91 2 36 Samples of NA VFACs Web -based 3 D Geospatial Facility Model Data Interfaces .......... 92 3 1 Construction & Non-Farm Labor Productivity Index (19642003). (Constant $ of contracts / workhours of hourly workers ) ............................................................................ 95 3 2 Col John Boyd, USAF (Ret.), OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, A ction) .................................................................................................................................... 98 3 3 Excerpt from first email to FIC listserv notifying the launch of the survey............................ 99

PAGE 12

12 3 4 Excerpt from reminder email to FIC listserv for people to complete the survey .................. 100 3 5 Iteration #2 of the survey went out with a standardized press release to a myriad of organizations and media outlets .......................................................................................... 102 3 6 Survey Introduction and overview ........................................................................................... 103 3 7 Part I: Basic Demographic Information .................................................................................. 104 3 8 Part I: Basic Demographic Information, cont. ....................................................................... 105 3 9 Part I: Basic Demog raphic Information, cont. ....................................................................... 105 3 10 Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs ................................................................................................. 106 3 11 Pa rt III: Ranking KPIs ........................................................................................................... 108 3 12 Part IV: Free Response, Summary, and Thank You screen capture ............................... 109 4 1 Survey #1 screen capture of the results to survey questions 13 ............................................ 115 4 2 Survey #1 Screen capture of the results to question 4 ............................................................ 116 4 3 Survey #1 Scre en capture of the results to question 6 Top level description of organizational role ................................................................................................................ 116 4 4 Survey #1 screen capture of the various results to first three KPIs: Units per manhour, Dollar s/Unit, and Safety ...................................................................................................... 117 4 5 Survey #1 screen capture of results to last three KPIs: Cost, OnTime Completion, and Quality Control/Rework ...................................................................................................... 119 4 6 Survey #1 screen capture of Ranking KPI responses ............................................................. 119 4 7 Survey #1 screen capture of Free Responses ....................................................................... 120 4 8 Survey #1 screen capture of Summary question, Which of these three definitions of BIM is closest to your own? .............................................................................................. 121 4 9 Survey #2 screen capture of the results to survey questions 13 ............................................ 122 4 10 Survey #2 Screen capture of the results to Question 4 ......................................................... 123 4 11 Survey #2 Screen capture of the results to question 6 T op level description of organizational role ................................................................................................................ 124 4 12 Survey #2 screen capture of the various results to first three KPIs: Units per manhour, Dollars/Unit, and Safety ............................................................................................. 125

PAGE 13

13 4 13 Survey #2 screen capture of results to last three KPIs: Cost, OnTime Completion, and Quality Control/Rework ............................................................................................... 126 4 14 Survey #2 screen capt ure of Ranking KPI responses ........................................................... 127 4 15 Survey #2 BIM Definition Free Response Answers ............................................................. 130 4 16 Survey #2 screen capture of Summ ary question ................................................................... 130 4 17 Compilation of Demographic and BIM Definition Data from Survey #1, 2, and 3 ........... 132 4 18 Compilation of KPI Rankin g Data from Survey #1, 2, and 3 .............................................. 133 4 19 Compilation of BIM Definition Data from Survey #1, 2, and 3 .......................................... 134 4 20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Information Technology Applications across the Facility Lifecycle .................................................................................................................. 138 4 21 Seattle BIM PIT Approach ..................................................................................................... 141 4 22 NWSs TriForma File Organization ...................................................................................... 142 4 23 Rendering and as -built photo of Jackson Ave. Barracks project ......................................... 144 4 24 I CMM score for Seattle BIM Project, Jackson Ave. Whole Brks Renewal .................. 150 4 25 Statistical Information Collection sample created and accomplished in Seattle ................ 155 4 26 PMBP Manual Project Delivery Process Map for a Typical Project ................................... 161 4 27 LRL Modeling Workflow ....................................................................................................... 174 4 28 Extracted Schedule from the LRL BIM showing various modules (rooms) ........................ 176 4 29 Furniture Types Imported from MDS and used in the LRL BIM ........................................ 178 4 30 Example of 3D furniture imported from MDS into BIM application ................................ 178 4 31 Army Reserve Dataset Evolution guidance and Finalized USACE -wide Dataset evolution guidance ............................................................................................................... 179 4 32 Rendering of LRLs first 3 D BIM, the Raleigh Durham and subsequent standard ARC design ........................................................................................................................... 180 4 33 Photograph of researcher evaluating the ARC BIM according to the NBIMS I CMM with LRL Mechanical Engineer, Jeremy Nichols; and current LRL BIM Manager, Wayne Stiles (Source: Hornback 2007) ............................................................................. 184 4 34 Capability Mat urity Model Evaluation of LRL Raleigh BIM Model July 26, 2007 .......... 184

PAGE 14

14 4 35 Initial Data Collection in Louisville less successful due to database reliability ................ 187 5 1 Summary USACE CCG Report, 22 JAN 09, showing range of 28%91% meeting their metrics ................................................................................................................................... 197 5 2 New BIM Compliant toggle box in Resident Management System (R MS) construction management database interface ..................................................................... 199 5 3 Unabridged results from Central Limit Theorem Comparison of BIM -based pilot projects to control population of similar facility use categ ory code ................................. 201 5 4 Summary of BIM -based project results when compared to 90% and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the control population of similar construction projects ......................... 202 5 5 ROI: Measuring the Value of BIM ......................................................................................... 213 A 1 Realignment/Establishment of Centers of Standardization (COS), FY 06 .......................... 222 B1 BIM Effects on Construction Key Performance Indicators Quick Survey ....................... 223

PAGE 15

15 LIST OF A CRONYM S 3 D Three Dimensions 4 D Three Dimensions + Time 5 D Four Dimensions + Money A/E Architect/Engineer AECO A rchitecture, Engineering, Construction, and Ownership AFB Air Force Base AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (formerly Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence) AFIT Air Force Institute of Technology AGC Associat ed General Contractors AIA American Institute of Architects AIM Agile Installation Management (USAF) AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ANSI/BOMA American National Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association ASC Associated Schools of Construction AtoN Aids to Navigation (USCG) BEP Business Enterprise Priority BIM Building Information Modeling BOD Beneficial Occupancy Date BOMA See ANSI/BOMA BPR Business Process Reengineering BRAC Ba se Realignment and Closure

PAGE 16

16 CAD Computer Automated/Assisted Design CADD Computer Automated Drafting and Design CAMP Capital Asset Management Portal (USCG) CAMP Compliance Assessment Management Program (USAF) CCG Consolidated Command Guid ance CD Construction Documents (or Drawings) CERL Construction Engineering Research Laboratory CES Civil Engineer Squadron CFO Chief Financial Officer CIFE Center for Integrated Facility Engineering CII Construction Industry Institu te CMAA Construction Management Association of America COBIE Construction Operations Building Information Exchange CONUS Continental United States COP Community of Practice COS Center of Standardization CSI Construction Specificatio ns Institute CURT Construction Users Roundtable CWE Current Working Estimate DoD Department of Defense DP Dynamic Prototype ELA Enterprise Licensing Agreement ER Engineering Regulation or Emergency Response

PAGE 17

17 ERDC Engineering Rese arch and Development Center (USACE) ERP Enterprise Resource Planning FFC Federal Facilities Council (NAS) FIC Facility Information Council FM Facility Management (or Maintenance) FY Fiscal Year GIS Geospatial (or Geographical) Infor mation Systems GNP Gross National Product GSA General Services Administration GWOT Global War on Terror HAF/GIO Headquarters Air Force/GeoIntegration Office I&E Installations & Environment IAI International Alliance for Interoperabi lity I CMM NBIMS Interactive Capability Maturity Model IDIQ Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity IDM Information Delivery Manual IFC Industry Foundation Classes IFD International Framework for Dictionaries IM Information Managem ent IOC Initial Operational Capability ISO/PAS International Organization for Standardization Publicly Available Specification IT Information Technology JICCENT Joint Intelligence Center, Central Command

PAGE 18

18 KML Keyhole Markup Language KPI Key Performance Indicator LBL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging MCAR Military Construction Army Reserve MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing MILCON Military Construction MP Military Program NAS National Academy of Science or Naval Air Station NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command NBIMS National BIM Standard NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences NIST Natio nal Institute of Standards and Technology O&M Operations and Maintenance OCA Office of the Chief Architect (GSA) ODUSD I&E Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Installations & Environment OGC Open Geospatial Consortium OMB Of fice of Management and Budget OODA Observe, Orient, Decide, Act OPS Onuma Planning System P2 See PMBP or PM AIS (USACE) PA Programmed Amount

PAGE 19

19 PACAF Pacific Air Forces (USAF) PBS Public Building Services (GSA) PD Position Description PM AIS Project Management Automated Information System (USACE) PMBP Program and Project Management Business Process (USACE) POM Program Objective Memorandum PY Program Year RA Registered Architect RMS Resident Management System ROI Return on Investment RP & ILM Real Property & Installations Lifecycle Management RPA Real Property Accountability RPAR Real Property Acceptance Requirements RPIR Real Property Inventory Requirements RTA Ready to Advertise SAME Society of American Military Engineers SCC Sector Command Center (USCG) SDD Sustainable Design and Development SDSFIE Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment SF Square Feet TAP Technology in Architectural Practice (AIA) TGMP Target Guaranteed Maximum Price UFIRB University of Florida Institutional Review Board USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

PAGE 20

20 USAF United States Air Force USCENTCOM United States Central Command USCG United Sta tes Coast Guard USN United States Navy VDC Virtual Design and Construction VE Value Engineering WBDG Whole Building Design Guide WES Waterways Experiment Station WHECs High Endurance Cutter (USCG) XML Extensible Markup Language

PAGE 21

21 Abstr act of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING (BIM) ON CON STRUCTION By Patrick C. Suermann May 2009 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Major: Design, Construction, and Planning This research assessed the impact of Building Information Modeling (BIM) implementation on construction projects according to six primary key performance indicators (KPIs) commonly used in the construction industry as accepted metrics for assessing project performance. These include: quality control (rework), ontime completion, cost, safety (lost man -hours), dollars/unit (square feet) performed, a nd units (square feet) per man hour. In the first research phase, data was collected through a survey instrument intended to assess practitioners perceptions about the impact of BIM on the six KPIs. Three iterations of the survey were conducted and it w as determined that the highest ranking KPIs in order of most favorable responses were quality control, on time completion, and units per man hour. The second tier of favorable responses included overall cost and cost per unit. In this second phase of res earch, projects were evaluated through interviews and case studies on -site at two U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) Districts in Seattle, WA and Louisville, KY to determine their KPIs through embedded research. In the third phase of research, quantitati ve results were gathered from the USACE construction productivity database interface: the Resident Management System (RMS) Subsequently the pilot projects were compared to a control dataset consisting of similar facilities across the USACE using traditi onal approaches through benchmarks aligned

PAGE 22

22 with metrics similar to the KPIs used in the surveys. Both BIM -based projects demonstrated statistically significant (favorable and unfavorable) performance differences when compared to the control dataset. Final ly, a n evaluation tool was developed and validated for implementing a construction productivity measurement system to supplement existing procedures suitable for evaluating construction productivity differences on BIM -based projects

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background In 2004, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a report stating that poor interoperability and data management costs the construction industry approximately $15.8 billion a year, or approximately 3 4% of the tot al industry ( NIST 2004) Since this report, many have dubbed Building Information Modeling (BIM), an emerging technological information management process and product, as the answer to this problem. From the 2007 publication of the National BIM Standard (NBIMS), a BIM (i.e. a single Building Information Model) is defined as a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility (NBIMS 2007). Furthermore, a BIM represents a shared knowledge resource or process for sharing in formation about a facility, form ing a reliable basis for decisions during a facilitys life -cycle from inception onward. In the words of the NBIMS Executive Committee Leader and former chief information technology (IT) architect for Chief Architect of the DoD Business Transformation Agencys modernization effort for installations and environmental issues with the Department of Defense (DoD ), Dana K. Deke Smith, FAIA, A basic premise of BIM is collaboration by different stakeholders at different phases o f the life cycle of a facility to insert, extract, update or modify information in the BIM to support and reflect the roles of that stakeholder (Smith 2006). Research Need Some potential stakeholders in BIM reside on opposite ends of a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum are those whose pervasive cynicism perpetuates a self fulfilling prophecy that BIM is just a lot of technological smoke and mirrors. These individuals feel that BIM is a trend that will pass before it ever aids the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operation (AECO)

PAGE 24

24 industry. At the other end of the spectrum, some individuals believe that BIM is the panacea for all things ailing the AECO community. Most people fall somewhere closer to the middle of this spectrum. However, there is one thing that all people on this metaphorical BIM spectrum need in order to justify their positions, and that is empirical data. The implement ation of BIM is progressing at a much faster rate than the amount of empirical data supporting its implementation. In turn, industry is not optimizing the pace of the implementation of BIM. Without data, few people can justify their adoption of BIM and those at the forefront of BIM technology may be moving in a direction that does not necessarily lead to success Research is needed to substantiate investment in a new approach that will actually yield a return on investment and result in solutions to current problems. But first, research needs to be accomplished to determine where BIM impacts construction qualitatively and quantitatively. Research Questions This research evaluated the impacts of BIM on federal construction projects according to commonly accepted metrics via qualitative means such as interviews and surve ys followed by quantitative means such as analysis of case study data. Th e following research questions were explored: Does a Building Information Modeling (BIM) approach in the design phase have an impact on the construction phase? If so, how does BIM aff ect construction? What types of information can be leveraged in a BIM approach and to what degree? To what degree does BIM affect construction? How do owners determine whether investments in improved technology (BIM) result in measureable benefit s ?

PAGE 25

25 Ratio nale and Theoretical Framework The r ationale behind this research is that federal entities have provided testbeds for implementing new ideas and new technologies in the past in the field of construction. Poised on the precipice of a major cultural and tec hnological shift to a BIM -based approach, proper research should be accomplished to ensure that the BIM implementation can show demonstrable positive impacts on traditionally accepted construction metrics. Therefore, this research evaluate d observed perceptions in the industry regarding BIMs impact on construction, which sub sequently orient ed specific research on pilot BIM projects according to prevailing industry perceptions. Additionally, quantitative construction productivity data was evaluated for statistically significant differences on BIM -based projects compared to traditional projects in a control population of similar scope, size, and type Finally a tool was proposed and validated for evaluating future project data for p roductivity differences. Scope and Limitations The results of this study were limited to federal construction projects and do not include commercial, residential, or industrial construction, unless otherwise noted. This dissertation include s a literature review and data from across the industry, with a narrowed focus on researching real -world construction projects from one of the largest construction owners in the world, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with respect to their BIM implementati on

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Innovation and Technology in the United States Federal Government In the mid twentieth century, the federal government was one of the primary sources of innovation in American industry. This model worked well because of the United States Federal governments massive financial resources and a myriad of industries associated with its daily operations. This was especially true in the engineering community, as demonstrated by the well known examples of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s and subsequent innovations by NASA in the 1960s. Examples germane to the construction industry include the Department of Defenses (DoDs) adoption of Value Engineering (VE) initiatives as early as 1954 in the Navys Bureau of Ships and its widespread construction adoption by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1965. This carried over to Navy Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the Public Building Service (PBS) of the U.S. General Services Admin istration (GSA) with their widespread adoption of value engineering in the early 1970s. More recently the USACE surmounted the challenge of assuring quality on multi -million dollar construction (MILCON) projects by establishing Engineering Regulation ( E R) 11101 12, Engineering and Design Quality Management promulgating the importance of ensuring quality in construction. In turn, this 1993 regulation and standard operating procedure served as a springboard for the United States move towards manag ing quality in construction industry -wide. However, as early as the late 1980s and into the tech-storm of the 1990s, the federal governments bureaucratic methods have often hindered them from serving as the pathfinders of new roads to transformational o r innovative excellence. Just as the DoD could be perceived as a beacon of innovation in the Cold War Era, their post Cold War resistance to adopting or lack of

PAGE 27

27 successful adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) via Geographical Information systems (GIS) showed a metaphorical chink in their armor. The DoD did not achieve significant success in implementing tactical level GIS until Colonel Brian Cullis championed the GeoBase initiative. Through this program, the U.S. Air Force achieved a comple te cultural shift from inaccurate, CAD based installation mapping to fully geo and ortho -rectified GIS installation maps in less than four years, a relative miracle in terms of enterprise-wide business change in the DoD. However, considering that GIS map s have been mainstream products since 1969 and have been used extensively since the improvement of personal computers in the 1990s, the Department of Defense lagged behind the rest of the industry in implementing the technology (Cullis 2005). On the th reshold of another cultural shift, the DoD again faces a unique opportunity to make an equally significant contribution towards standardizing the way industry designs, constructs, and maintains its facilities. This time the DoD is seizing the opportunity to once again assert its ability to lead the industry. The idea is Building Information Modeling (BIM), or the attempt to transform the building supply chain through open and interoperable information exchange (NIBS 2007). The question remains however, does BIM really ha ve any effect on the indicators which determine the success or failure of a construction project? International View of BIM: The United Kingdom Rob Howard makes a tongue in -cheek remark that actually summarizes many techno cynics view s when he says, The conspiracy between hardware and software suppliers to create demand for each others products forces users to invest frequently. More change results from the opportunities offered by new technologies than from feedback on users needs (Howard 1998). Howard goes on to evaluate construction IT and predicting future, worthy developments. In a utilitarian way, Howard defines successful technology not by some nebulous scoring system,

PAGE 28

28 but merely by what is most embraced by the greatest n umber of people. Products discussed include computer automated drafting (CAD), communication through various formats, and spreadsheets. Conversely, Howard foreshadows the lack of success when it comes to BIM by saying, as the number of available CAD pac kages grew in the late 1970s and 1980s, the early ambitions for complete 3 D modeling and automated design were put aside and drawing production became the most realistic goal of architectural, and later, engineering consultants (Howard 1998). In his conc lusion, Howard describes the necessary conditions for wide -spread market success of new construction computing technology and focuses nearly exclusively on the factors needed for successful, widespread use of interoperable data through BIM. He also addres ses the culturally based need for cooperation on consensus -based standards in the following excerpt, national governments will still need to provide support for representing their interests and to ensure that commercially led standards, developed internat ionally, meet a common need (Howard 1998). This is exactly the mission of the National BIM Standard (NBIMS) committee. In the years since Howards book, the renewed and nearly realized ambitions for complete 3 D modeling and automated design is threef old. First, as firms continue to improve, the proverbial bar has been raised for winning project solicitations, and firms need ever better designs, analysis of their designs, and visualization tools to impress owners. Also, as facilities become more co mplex and schedules tighter, detecting errors through modeling is becoming a requirement, rather than a luxury. Third, being able to attach attributes to smart, queriable, object -oriented models allows users to ensure that constructability and sustainability concerns are met using the best data available. Howard summarizes the need and potential success for BIM when he states, computer systems are seen currently as discrete aids to specific processes

PAGE 29

29 but, with communications now sufficiently powerful, and with a growing base of electronic data, they will soon be seen as part of an overall process the transfer of data from the mind of the client, through the computers of the project team, to the control and management of the building (Howard 1998). In another recent article, Lee (2005) indicated that it is evident that the benefits of BIM are not only valued by those in the United States or in the maintenance phase of the construction lifecycle, for that matter. Unlike Bazjanacs (2004) work which refe rs to the lifecycle benefits of BIM, Lee is primarily concerned with the benefits of constructability, communication, and coordination during design and construction while trying to integrate and de -conflict the highly intricate systems indicative of today s modern facilities. One important item to note is that Lee does not describe her research as BIM. Since the term BIM was originally coined by the Autodesk Company (Laiserin 2002), and most English firms use Graphisoft products instead of Autodesk, Le es paper refers to n D modeling as an extension of building information modeling that is based off of intelligent objects rather than points, lines, and polygons. However, in references to Lees paper, this study will refer to BIM and n D modeling synonymously. The n in n D CAD refers to the fact that there are typically n dimensions used for planning. Traditional projects in the past used 2D plan and elevation views to communicate design intent. Currently, many design firms are moving towards 3 D visualization programs that provide owners and builders the opportunity to feel what their project may look like. Finally, many in the construction industry are interested in 4 D products: those that show a 3 D model built over time the fourth di mension. Through 4 -D products, Lee hypothesized that designers and construction contractors will be more easily able to identify possible mistakes and conflicts

PAGE 30

30 at the early stage of a construction project, and enable stakeholders to accurately predict th e construction schedule (Lee 2005). With the term, n-D modeling, Lee proposes an idea where 4 D products are enhanced with further integration of multiple design dimensions into a holistic model, in essence BIM. Specifically, Lees research set abo ut to define, develop, and validate the proposition nD modeling project over a period of 18 months and included an academic research team workshop, a national and an international workshop (Lee 2005). During Lees workshops, the team determined one of the most difficult obstacles to BIM was interoperability. To answer the problem, Lee (and Bazjanac separately) espouse using the Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) established by the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) Since these stand ards are the only one to receive the designation of International Standards in the form of ISO/PAS 16739, (Bazjanac 2004), they would seem to hold the most promise for creating a BIM that could be accepted by software developers and users alike. However Lees research never succeeded in using these to create a BIM interface or a prescribed list of required data for an initially operationally capable (IOC) BIM. Instead, the research describes difficulties achieving consensus on specific design elements in Lees proposed case study. Specifically, the initial panel of academic, industry professionals, and clients could not agree on the window selection for their specific case study project of a research office. For instance, from a crime prevention pers pective, windows should be small, open inwards and positioned near the ceiling to reduce intruder access whereas from an access perspective, windows should be large, glare -free and positioned lower to enable a wide range of users to operate it (Lee 2005). While Lees outcome was not atypical of a normal design or construction project, the research can be criticized for not accomplishing its objective due to being short circuited by competing design concerns or individual preferences.

PAGE 31

31 BIM Applications an d Research BIMs increased presence in the marketplace has fueled a greater interest for research into new BIM technology, as well as studies regarding its level of market penetration and benefits in relation to ROI. Some of the leading research bodies and surveys are discussed here. As discussed earlier, the desired approach of choice for success in making facility data as rich and robust as map data is leveraging the capabilities of Building Information Modeling (BIM). Stanfords Center for Integrated F acility Engineering (CIFE) In a landmark study started in 2006, Kunz and Fischer (2007) from Stanford Universitys Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) studied virtual design and construction (VDC) and concluded that . VDC is being used a nd significantly growing. As this growth proceeds and advances, users become more proficient they are more likely to perceive value and thus make organizational and strategic shifts in their operations. Later they noted that advanced users report [incre ased efficiency] and indicate an important business opportunity for those who can provide VDC -based services early on. Owners, in particular, represent a client base largely unaware of the potential benefits that VDC provides (Kunz and Fischer 2007). However, in addition to investigating reasons to adopt VDC or BIM, CIFE also investigated why firms are not using VDC. Figure 2 1 shows that the majority of owners and builders indicated that the lack of need or lack of owner request are the leading r easons for not using VDC on construction projects. Furthermore, of the projects using VDC, owners are nearly twice as likely to be nonusers as the other parties to the design and construction process (See Figure 2 1). Following lack of owner request as the most often choice from respondents, CIFEs survey showed that the near -major ity of all other parties to the process cite need and owner request as the leading reason (Kunz and Fischer 2007) It is also important to note that t he comments associated with

PAGE 32

32 the other response reveal that that many non user r espondents are in the process of starting a pilot project now, or did not have access to a designer or contractor with enough VDC experience to risk a first attempt (Kunz and Fischer 2007). This data suggests that most owners are unaware of the benefits that VDC can afford. But what are the benefits of VDC or BIM? The CIFE survey showed that the majority of the responding firms were focused on the benefits of improved visualization (Figure 2 2). Figure 2 1 CIFE Survey Results : R easons for not usi ng VDC [ Adapted from Kunz and Fischer 2007] Figure 2 2 CIFE VDC Survey Results: Respondents not using VDC on projects [Adapted from Kunz and Fischer 2007]

PAGE 33

33 Regarding non users, o wners were nearly twice as likely to be nonusers than the other stakeholders in the design and construction process. Nearly 2/3 of the specialties respondents report using VDC on at least one project (Kunz and Fischer 2007). In the future, the CIFE survey offers evidence of short range and long range growth opportunities for VDC or BIM. When asked about which VDC phases the respondents had made significant pro gress in, the responses show that BIM implementation was much more mature in 2007 than in 2006 in the areas of supporting construction documents and supporting conceptual design (See Figure 2 3). The responses show that while there is a wide range of sophistication in use of VDC there is a clear division between use of visualization methods and more sophisticated analytical methods. With the majority of respondents as the dividing line betw een levels of sophistication t he majority of respondents used visualization activities such as clash detection, design presentation, and space planning. Conversely, l ess than the majority of respondents report being engaged in leveraging VDC dat a for downstream processes such as analytical methods like cost estimation or energy analysis (Kunz and Fischer 2007) Figure 2 3 CIFE VDC Survey Results: Business Purposes for VDC at Individual Organizations [Ad apted from Kunz and Fischer 2007]

PAGE 34

34 Still noted, but less than the majority of respondents, cited benefits that fell into the analytical methods category w ith tasks such as cost estimating, structural analysis, and energy analysis. This data point suggests that VDC is primarily focused on benefits to architects, not engineers, constructors, owners, or operators; which may suggest why most owners do not requ est VDC or BIM services on their construction projects. Additionally, the survey sought to capture the perceived value VDC offers to practitioners of the AECO industry. Of the four choices, respondents said that architects received the highest perceived value from VDC or BIM, followed in order by owners, general contractors, with the least perceived value for subcontractors (See Figure 2 4). The majority of construction stakeholders reported seeing qualitative value from us ing VDC. Regardless of organizational role all respondents saw the primary beneficiaries of VDC as first Architect s, and then Owner s close behind but with the least value being enjoyed by Subcontractors. This data suggests that those who use VDC consistently see value for themselves and others in the process. However, CIFEs individual interviews confirm the survey data but contrarily indicate d that subcontractors may actually receive the most direct financial benefit (Kunz and Fischer 2007) Figure 2 4 CIFE VDC Survey Results: Perceived value to four parties from different points of view [Adapted from Kunz and Fischer 2007]

PAGE 35

35 Areas that remained nearly the sam e as in 2006 were total respondents using VDC methods supporting field construction management and supporting operations and maintenance (O&M.) The only phase that actually had fewer responses in 2007 than in 2006 was using VDC in the pre -project planning phase. Perhaps this could represent a shift in the paradigm of the respondents focus on the informational aspects of VDC or BIM and less on considering VDC compliant while simply creating 3 -D massing models or other various virtual methods used in this phase (Figure 2 5). The respondents report dramatic progress across nearly all of the AEC process. Specifically, VDC in the design phase progress grew by 25% 35%. Also, suppor t ing the creation of construction documents more than doubled from 20062007, indicating a new level of emerging sophistication by contractors There were only nominal gains in support of O&M. Finally, it is notable that VDC use on pre project planning decreased. The data suggest that designers increased their VDC use more quickly than construction, O&M or pre project planning (Kunz and Fischer 2007). Figure 2 5 CIFE VDC Survey Results: In which project phases did you make significant progress? [Adapted from Kunz and Fischer 2007] Lastly, the CIFE survey also asked questions that sought to reveal trends in quantitative value from re al world projects using VDC. Specifically, the CIFE study focused on the amount of contingency set aside, risk management, change order, response latency, monthly cost

PAGE 36

36 conformance, and final project schedule. In summary, the survey found that the majorit y of firms still retained the same amount of contingency on jobs run with VDC, but that 30% of respondents perceived that contingency would be reduced on similar projects run with VDC on a new project of similar scope using VDC/BIM. More interestingly, ov er 50% of respondents saw reduction in risk associated with projects on which they used VDC. A tactical level indicator of operational risk is unbudgeted change orders. While most respondents answered that they did not know if there was a difference on p rojects run with VDC, the most frequent response other than dont know was that 20% of the respondents reported that their VDC projects usually were more than 10% better when it came to unbudgeted change orders in comparison with similar non -VDC projects CIFE also reported dramatic improvements in latency on projects using VDC, a finding which is also supported by interview data ( Kunz and Fischer 2007). Most respondents who answered that VDC improved latency said that it improved their operations by 2 7 days reduction in response time compared to similar projects that did not use VDC. Lastly, still significant, but less dramatic improvements came in the areas of cost and schedule. Roughly 10% of respondents thought that monthly cost was improved by 5 10%. Regarding time or schedule key performance indicators, the CIFE survey reported that only 15% of respondents reported that they knew or tracked schedule compliance, but that 100% of that group reported schedule improvements ranging from on time to greater than 30 days ahead of schedule. Top c riteria for BIM s olutions: s urvey r esults While CIFE is a globally respected research leader in the field of VDC, they are not the only research organization interested in BIM. Dr. Lachmi Khemlani, of the University of California at Berkeley and founder/editor of AECbytes (an e-journal devoted to BIM ) publishes monthly news, case studies, and research about BIM online. In her article titled, Top Criteria for BIM Solutions: AECbytes Survey Results Khemlani reveals the results of a BIM survey

PAGE 37

37 that went out to 5,500 registered subscribers with a 12% response rate for approximately 660 completed surveys which makes its results noteworthy. According to the article, The results of this survey indica te that at the present time, the need for drawing production is still paramount, making this the top ranking criterion for BIM solutions across all categories of firms and respondents (Khemlani 2007). Figure 2 6 shows the fully rank -ordered list of crite ria evaluated in the survey according to perceived order of importance from respondent data. Figure 2 6. AECbytes Survey, The stand alone criteria, ranked according to their order of importance for all the respondents. [Adapted from Khemlani 2007] This is important because it shows that while much of the talk regarding BIM focuses on the I portion, or leveraging information for decision making, the survey results suggest that the current, strongest need for industry practitioners and BIM remains t he need to produce [antiquated] drawings. Clearly, there is a schism between BIM advocators like the National

PAGE 38

38 Building Information Model Standard Committee and the BIM practitioners who responded to this survey from the AECO industry at large. Along the lines of proprietary software, it was interesting to note that direct integration seems to be preferable for interfacing with analysis tools and other supporting technologies as opposed to interoperability through open standards such as the IFC (Khemlani 2007). With results like these, it is easier to understand why software firms (i.e. the vendors) are not as interested in pursuing interoperability as bodies like the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) [now the buildingSMART Alliance] and National BIM Standard (NBIMS) committee, because these results indicate that clients actually prefer direct integration rather than interoperability. Whether or not this is directly a result of vendors leading clients to prefer direct integration is a research question that remains un a nswered Figure 2 7. AECbytes Survey, Professional Role of Respondents [Adapted from Khemlani 2007 ] T he results were weighted towards document production Th erefore, it is important to evaluate the focus areas or job responsibilities of the respondents in this survey to try to explain the results. Figure s 2 7 and 28 show the respondents professional roles and services. While Khemlani notes that the survey provides some particularly useful feedback to all the BIM vendors, it provides useful insights on what is most important and what isnt (Khemlani 2007).

PAGE 39

39 The weighting of interest on construction document generation, object associativity, and object libr aries can be attributed to the fact that 80% of the respondents day to day work is providing architectural services. Figure 2 8 AECbytes Survey, Disciplines Practiced by Respondents Firms (multiple choices allowed) [Adapted from Khemlani 2007] Another interesting item of note was the question, regarding which software platfor m the respondents were using. Until this survey, there were no unbiased, widely disseminated studies showing which software platforms were preferred by BIM operators. As shown in Figure 2 9, an overwhelming majority of respondents, more than all the othe rs combined, answered that they were using Autodesks Revit software. This was also corroborated in the McGraw Hill 2008 BIM Smart Market Report, which showed that 67% of its respondents also used Revit, making it the highest used platform by nearly a 2:1 ration compared to non Autodesk software applications.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 2 9. AECbytes, BIM Solutions currently Being Used or Evaluated (multiple choices allowed) and 2008 McGraw Hill Awareness of BIM related tools [Adapted from Khemlani 2007 and Gudgel 200 8 ] Another benefit of Khemlanis survey is that it provides what has turned into nearly the holy grail of BIM re search. In her article, she lists a short, easy -to -read summary and

PAGE 41

41 comparison of the two leading BIM solutions (in terms of company revenue but not in terms of respondents percentage in this survey), Revit and Bentley. Khemlani states, Looking at the s ame results from a Bentley Revit comparative standpoint, the top criteria seem to be well balanced out against their respective strengths, which again is surprising given the significantly larger proportion of respondents using Revit (Khemlani 2007). For example, Khemlani feels that the top ranked criterion of full support for construction documentation is definitely a key strength of the Bentley platform, because of its software architecture built on top of the powerful CAD capabilities of MicroStation. Conversely, the second ranked criterion, smart objects that maintain associativity, connectivity, and relationships with other objects is definitely a key strength of the Revit platform, having been built into the application from the start. Lastly, with regard to the development of object libraries, there is more activity happening on this front for Revit, while Bentleys federated database approach lends itself better to distributed work processes, varied workflows, and large projects (Khemlani 2 007). In all, Khemlani goes on to evaluate several other categories and compares the Revit to Bentley users answers, but she summarizes by saying, The results of the survey clearly indicate that the AEC industry is still very much reliant on drawings for conducting its business of designing and constructing buildings, which is why the most important requirement for BIM applications that has emerged is the ability to provide full support for producing construction documents so that another drafting a pplication need not be used (Khemlani 2007). However, with that said, the author also notes that BIM, as a technology, is still in its formative stage and solutions in the market are continuing to evolve as they respond to users specific needs. Indee d, if industry practitioners are not asking for interoperability in BIM software, it will not

PAGE 42

42 become one of the forces that shape software creation, and in turn will tie users to direct integration in proprietary software ad infinitum Construction Manag ement Association of America (CMAA) s urvey of o wners The Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) Survey of Owners sheds some light on the state of BIM in the American construction industry. In the joint publication of their eighth annual sur vey of owners, FMI, a construction-specific research and consulting firm, partnered with the CMAA to determine the current state and future trends in the construction industry. The subtitle, The Perfect Storm Construction Style alludes to the current market forces that are driving technological adoption at a greater rate than in the previous seven years of the survey. Specifically, the authors state, A fresh tool Building Information Modeling (BIM) is enabling and supporting this change in philosophy, process, and approach, which will allow owner organizations, in turn, to weather the coming storm of construction industry challenges (DAgostino et al. 2007). The report goes on to list seven key challenges that are acting as the drivers for acceler ating change in the industry. A paraphrased list is included here: Aging infrastructure ; Aging workforce ; Existing personnel retention and new personnel attraction ; Accelerated schedules, global demand for construction and design, and project complexity ; Alternative financing and project delivery systems ; Increased global competition for resources and assets ; Needed investment in education and training and subsequent demonstrable return on investment (ROI)

PAGE 43

43 In order to respond to these industry drivers, the report focuses much of its analysis of its approximately 200 respondents answers that collectively pointed to BIM adoption as the primary response to the preceding industry challenges. In particular, the report says that approximately 35% of all respo ndents have used BIM processes and technology for one or more years (DAgostino et al. 2007). The trend has increased from 3% in 2003 to 4% in 2004, 6% in 2005, 11% in 2006, and now 35% in 2007. With an exponential uptake rate, BIM is moving from a tool or approach with promise to a tool or approach that is in use. More telling is that 74% of the owner organizations using BIM surveyed said they were likely (21%) or extremely likely (53%) to recommend its use to other owners (DAgostino et al. 2007). The next step was to evaluate the benefits and hurdles associated with BIM adoption in the industry. The two highest ranked responses from all respondents, among both BIM users and non users were that BIMs primary benefits were Improved Com munication and Collaboration Among Project Participants and Higher Quality Project Execution and Decision Making Owners responding to the Eighth Annual Survey of Owners reported lack of expertise and lack of industry standards as two of the greatest hurdles to pairing enabling technologies with collaborative construction processes. The top three highest ranked BIM hurdles for BIM users and non users were the same three elements : Lack of Expertise, Lack of Industry Standards, and Greater System Complexity. This data substantiates the need for training and standards to meet the growing complexity of todays architectural landmarks and sustainability initiat ives with a through strategic BIM approach throughout the AECO industry. In a technological area with much promise, but little direction, the DoD faces the unique opportunity to standardize their approach to BIM through deployment, testing, and modifying BIM operations and processes that

PAGE 44

44 will benefit the AECO industry at large, thus contributing a BIM Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that will eventually become the overall industry standard. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Another very active resea rch body in the United States is the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL). According to LBLs BIM expert, Dr. Vladimir Bazjanac, the product conception-construction-delivery process in most other industries follows the design-test/verify manufact ure deliver -warranty script. In contrast, the AECO industry seems to employ the convince -build -pray modus operandi (2004). While this comment can be viewed as a tongue in -cheek commentary on the state of construction, the science of manufacturing ver sus the art of construction has long been a divisive debate. But, adopting BIM does not have to mean that all construction must adhere to a cookie cutter manufacturing approach. Rather, a facilitys BIM should include all the information that makes i t unique, and not just boilerplate information used on all construction projects. Bazjanac points out that before BIM can be successful, there must be consensus regarding the accepted definition of BIM. Used as a noun, according to Bazjanac (2004), a BIM is an instance of a populated data model of buildings that contains multidisciplinary data specific to a particular building Additionally, he says, i t is a static representation of that building (i.e. it uniquely defines that building in a section of time) it contains raw data that that define the building from the point of view of more than one discipline. Data contained in a BIM are also rich: they define all the information pertinent to the particular building component. A three dimensional surface model of building geometry alone that is used only in visualization is usually not a BIM. A BIM includes all relationships a nd inheritances for each of the building components it describes; in that sense it is intelligent. A data set that defin es only a single view of a building (i.e. that describes a specific single type of p erformance), such as a data set

PAGE 45

45 that, for example, includes all data a structural engineer may need for structural calculations (but nothing more) is, by itself, not a B IM ( Bazjanac 2004). After reading the definition and intent of BIM as expressed above, some opponents may feel a valid argument is, that with such rich data, describing even the most minute detail about every intricacy of even the simplest structure BIM would be too unwieldy and the overwhelming amount of data would be impossible to maintain ( Bazjanac 2004 ). This is a similar argument many members of the military used when they were resisting change to mapping in GIS. But who will maintain the data? Who will update the data? were common cries from technophobes and specialists alike. The secret to successful adoption and deployment of BIM is that it is NOT a big brother database with endless amounts of data on every facet in a facility. Ra ther, a successful BIM should include pointers to external databases where the people are already maintaining the most up to date data ( Bazjanac 2004 ). An example could include a window or door schedule. Rather than put all the factory production and warranty data about a facilitys windows and doors in the actual BIM, the BIM would include direct pointers or hyperlinks to the data from a company like Andersen windows or to JELD WEN doors warranty data. In this way, the relative footprint of a BIM would be as small as possible, and its information would be dynamic changing as often as necessary to meet the industry demand. And as Deke Smith, FAIA notes, this requires industry-wide collaboration and open standards. National BIM Standard Interactiv e Capability Maturity Model (NBIMS I -CMM) Described in NBIMS Chapter 4, Section 4.1 and 4.2, the NBIMS I CMM is an interactive version of the static excel maturity matrix originally created by NBIMS Executive Chair, Mr. Deke Smith, FAIA. Before the NBIMS was published at the end of 2007, the I -CMM was created in the fall of 2006 and validated in the summer of 2007 by using it to evaluate the 2007

PAGE 46

46 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Technology in Practice (TAP) BIM Award Winners. After the team used a double blind approach and discovered scores that were only between 1 5% different, the tool experienced minor modifications before adoption and subsequent inclusion in the final NBIMS publication (McCuen and Suermann 2007) For visual examples of how the I CMM can be applied to evaluating a BIM or BIM portfolio, see Figures 2 24 and 2 25 later in this chapter The I -CMM is an interactive Microsoft Excel workbook with six tabs that elaborate on the original CMM. W orking from top to bottom, users enter the ir perceived maturity levels in the 11 categories. In turn, this populates the Credit column. After the sheet is complete and all credits are summed the user can see their maturity level. Tied to the date, the score will reveal the BIM maturity level related to the date since the minimum score was 20 in 2007, leading up to a minimum score of 40 in 2009. Scores above 50 receive score levels of Certified to Platinum for scores over 90 out of a possible 100. It is exciting that research begun as pa rt of this work led to a nationally recognized tool for practitioners to use in their personal BIM journeys. Hyperlinked in the NBIMS in Chapter 4.2 and reference d in the McGraw Hill Smart Market BIM Report from December 2008, the NBIMS ICMM is the defau lt standard for evaluating BIM information management maturity (Gudgel 2008) Federal Historical Perspective on the Facility Lifecycle At the Government Industry Forum held October 31, 2006 sponsored by the Federal Facilities Council affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and National Research Council (NRC), there were three panels and associated categories of BIM briefings that were very telling about the level of work completed by each entity. The first, BIM: Grass Root experiences consisted of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, and the Construction Operations

PAGE 47

47 Building Information Exchange (COBIE) initiative ERDC and NASA. The second, BIM: Agency-wide Actions grouped the USACE, the USCG, and the GSA together. Lastly, the most a dvanced panel, titled, BIM: Pushing Standards to the Edge, consisted of representatives from the National Institute of Building Sciences Facility Information Councils ( NIBS -FIC) NBIMS Initiative, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Constru ction Specifications Institute (CSI), Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC), and IAI. U.S. Federal Marketplace accounts for 500,000 buildings and facilities valued at $300 billion with more than $17 billion spent annually on their operation and maintenance by at least 25 different agencies responsible for their lifecycles (FFC 2006). Specifically, the DoD is one of the largest real estate and real property owners in the world. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 DoD Base Structure Report listed more than 545,700 fac ilities, on more than 5,400 sites, and approximately 30 million acres of real estate with a Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of $706 Billion (DoD 2008) In the 2009 Fiscal Year appropriation and authorization DoD -wide for Military Constructi on (MILCON) were approximately $1,783,998,000 and $2,248,702, 000 respectively (DoD 2009). Needless to say, the DoD faces unique chall enges to construct, operate, and maintain its massive infrastructure investment. However, as discussed previously, the DoD has succeeded at turning past challenges into opportunities to affect change in the private sector, and hopes to lead the push to improving the entire facility lifecycle through BIM. In particular, the process of real property acceptance after initial or beneficial occupancy and real property inventory maintenance is an under -investigated and non-standardized area of the construc tion lifecycle. Until 2003, little effort had been expended on the topic. However, at that time in 2003, the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and the Environment (ODUSD I&E) realized that one of the most fundamental elemen ts of real property

PAGE 48

48 management is real property accountability (RPA) and recognized Real Property & Installations Lifecycle Management (RP&ILM) as a Business Enterprise Priority (BEP.) In November 2003, the ODUSD I&E began with a business process reengine ering (BPR) effort to delineate and promulgate real property inventory requirements (RPIR). On January 26, 2005, a BPR summary with policy and technical recommendations (i.e., the RPIR document) was approved by the Installations and Environment (I&E) Doma in Governance Board. The RPIR document serves as a foundation to facilitate and enable development of a modernized real property inventory that will meet the Departments current and future requirements for asset accountability and valuation. The Real Pr operty Acceptance Requirements (RPAR) BPR effort was subsequently conducted as an extension of the RPIR effort. This document covers the portion of the real property life cycle where a designated DoD real property official acquires legal authority over an asset from a construction agent or other official. RPAR BPR meetings were held from January through July of 2005, and the project will culminate upon the release of the RPAR document, expected in the spring or summer of 2006. This document contains all of the requirements necessary to accept real property into the Departments inventory from a construction agent (e.g., USACE, NAVFAC, etc.) According to the RPAR document, all new real property asset information will be integrated, consistent, and in a s tandardized electronic format. (RPAR V5.0, 2006) Nevertheless, no format has been specified to this point, but the services are working towards integrating the guidelines set forth in the RPAR document into a BIM approach compatible with already standard ized DoD Spatial Data Standard for Facilities and the Environment (SDSFIE) compliant GIS maps. The various BIM approaches are being tailored to best suit the needs of owners, facility managers, and emergency responders. In the near future,

PAGE 49

49 evaluations of the BIM concept will be realized through prototype field tests on real -world projects. The General Services Administration The GSA Public Buildings Service (PBS) Office of the Chief Architect (OCA) established the National 3 D 4 D BIM Program in 2003 (Mat ta 2009). The primary goal of the program is to phase in 3 -D, 4 D, and BIM adoption for all major projects. Additionally, the GSA hoped to create a knowledge portal community and a six-part BIM Guide Series. As of January 2009, Series 01, 02, and 03 are available online with Series 04 7 in various unpublished stages (Matta 2009). In between 2003 and 2006, the GSA completed 10 pilot projects before becoming the first large owner to formally mandate BIM on their jobs. In November of 2006, the GSA promulga ted the requirement for contractors to use BIM products or processes to accomplish design on all Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 designs (Hardy 2006). As the manager of more than 342 million square feet of office space serving 1.1 million federal employees, the GSA is one of the largest real property managers in the world, making this mandate a major event with far reaching implications in the AECO industry ( Hardy 2006). One of the immediate implications for software vendors was that the GSA required firms to valida te that they could meet the GSAs requirements. Firms went through four rounds of validation testing using a GSA test case building. According to the Series 02 GSA BIM Guide, The GSA Concept Design View is a model view of the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) BIM modeling standard that was developed and published by the IAI (Kam 2006). Upon showing that they met the GSA requirements, firms in turn received the designation as GSA compliant. Only four companies and five applications received this singula rly distinctive designation. They were Onumas Onuma Planning System, Bentleys Architecture, Graphisofts ArchiCAD,

PAGE 50

50 and Autodesks Architectural Desktop (Now known as AutoCAD Architecture) in conjunction with Inopso, and Autodesks Revit. As a benefit, this pushed software vendors to prove that their software actually worked in the GSA case study according to various interoperability and functionality concerns. Additionally, the precedent created by competitive pilot projects among software ve ndors to certify functionality is a model that is very appealing and may become commonplace in the future. Conversely, this also effectively limited the field to only four competitors and ensured that all contractors who worked with the GSA would be force d to pursue a path aligned with one of these four vendors. However, there are few, if any, mainstream software outside this small circle of major firms, so the benefits most likely outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, the Series 02s Appendix has almost 50 pages of information that reads like a users guide for accomplishing specific tasks such as creation and analysis within the five software platforms. This is accomplished through screen captures and other rich means of conveying tactical level information for practitioners, making it a very valuable tool for those working in the field. Most importantly, the GSA will forever be linked to bringing BIM to the forefront of the AECO industry. T he GSA did not stop at simply mandating B IM, but instead added to the body of knowledge through their unique software certification approach, their pilot projects and copious data collection, and user friendly and robust BIM Guide Series. The GSA won two 2007 BIM awards from the AIA TAP Community of Practice under the Juries Choice category in recognition of their contributions to the AECO industry. The GSA Submissions covered Our National BIM Program: Highlights from 2006 and 2006 Pilot Project Successes: Building Information Mo deling. Going from the general to specific, this

PAGE 51

51 section will discuss the two submissions in order from the BIM Program at large to the more specific case studies. GSA: Our National BIM Program: Highlights from 2006 The GSA submission to the AIA TAP 2007 BIM Award selection panel consisted of an executive summary of their reasons for pursuing BIM technology and process improvements, as well as a description of their BIM Toolkit. Paraphrasing their own summary, the GSA said that their primary goal f or adopting a BIM approach was to advocate and employ value adding digital visualization, simulation and optimization technologies to increase quality and efficiency throughout project lifecycles and beyond (Kam 2007) As stated earlier, the GSA felt tha t they showed support at the highest levels by mandating that projects receiving design funding in fiscal year 2007 and beyond submit a spatial program BIM as one of the prerequisites of final concept approval. Also, they actively promoted the implementation of additional BIM technologies above this mandated minimum throughout the project lifecycle. However, their view of encouraging BIM implementation on a project -byproject basis could be viewed critically as not in line with the portfol io -based or enterprise planning systems promulgated in the NBIMS, Version 1.0. However, after these test cases, it is more likely that practitioners will engage in more open collaboration with industry, and see further project opportunities as they gain m ore team experiences and the technology matures. The GSA was clear about focusing their entry on their successes in implementing, advocating and supporting 3 D and 4 D BIM technologies, but with a specific focus on their spatial program validation effort s. In order to further their BIM program, the GSA partnered with many academic institutions such as Harvard, Georgia Tech, Penn State, and Stanford and national standard and professional organizations including AIA, IAI, AGC, NIBS, NIST, CURT, CMAA, and FIATECH The stated business drivers for the GSA mandating BIM was their spatial program validation

PAGE 52

52 requirements (Figure 2 10). From their AIA TAP submission, the GSA state s: Prior to requiring a spatial program BIM, area take -offs were calculated by hand using manually projected poly lines and relied heavily on the spatial measurement knowledge of the individual performing the analysis ( GSA 2007). However, there were a dditional concerns including: missing, incomplete, or inaccurate facility documentation, organizational initiative to reduce their building inventorys average annual energy consumption by 35%, improved FM practices, and automated checks for addressing ci rculation and security requirements. Figure 2 10. GSA: Projects using BIM for spatial program validation [Adapted from Kam 2007] Some examples of cost, schedule quality, and efficiency benefits from the GSA include: Having space measure ments available to project teams within minutes to 90% accuracy ; Capturing as -built data of existing buildings to 4 mm accuracy in a matter of hours using laser scanning ; More accurate estimations of energy performance, and major savings through mechanical system optimization ; Improved means of communication between tenant agencies and during pre -bid conferences ; A reduction in construction duration by 19% on a renovation project using [a] 4 D Phasing technique ;

PAGE 53

53 Uncovered design errors and omissions (e.g. e nvelope and coordination omissions) in an office building design The GSA program highlights also points out that their focus is not solely on BIM, but also on 3 D l aser scanning, 4 D phasing, energy performance and operations, and circulation design validation. However, their primary focus was on spatial program validation and they accomplished five projects that tested and validated these capabilities (Figure 2 10) Among the noted drivers for BIM -based spatial validation were incorrect spatial programs causing over -design and cost overruns, promoting data reliability, and inefficiency concerns. The perceived benefits from implementing the BIM -based approach included: [unquantified] cost savings, increased quality by embedding American National Standards Institute/Building Owners and Managers Association International (ANSI/BOMA) rules into BIM analysis tools, and design efficiency by automating architects spatial programs. The mission of the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA) is to enhance the human, intellectual and physical assets of the commercial real estate industry through advocacy, education, research, standards and informati on ( BOMA 2007). At the tactical or technical level, the GSA developed a specialized Concept Design View of the requirements for spatial data management. Their organization -specific Concept Design View is a model view of the IFC BIM modeling standard develop ed and published by the creator of IFCs, the IAI. In a ddition the GSA collaborated with software vendors and validated applications through four rounds of testing using a test case building as discussed earlier. The GSA built on the traditional 2D, Construction Drawing process and created the 3 D Concept BIM Model process (Figure 2 11). The key is that the ANSI/BOMA rules intelligently automated the traditional approach fraught with uncertainty and lacking in standardization. Additionally, once thi s application

PAGE 54

54 proved fruitful, supplemental benefits became apparent, such as tenant stacking plans and reports and floor calculations (Figure 2 12). Figure 2 11. GSA: [GSA] Innovates process change in space measurement [ Kam 2007) Fig ure 2 12 GSA: Incorporating design expertise. Note: Solibri Model Checker used in screen capture of tenant stacking reports [ Kam 2007)

PAGE 55

55 Lastly, in the GSAs submission, they also discussed their Toolkit approach which (Figure 2 13) includes their GSA BIM Guide Series, as well as their extensive website listing that has been referenced and discussed previously in this chapter. Of note, however, is their commitment to educating themselves through internal activities such as naming regional BIM C hampions and creating a community of knowledge to support and diffuse information sharing across their organization. This effort included creation of an internal knowledge portal, development of a sample scope of work and contract language for 3 D and 4 D BIM services, and dissemination of information at regional conferences and project based consultation. Figure 2 13. GSA: Automatically generate a BIM Report. [Adapted from Ho 2007) ] GSA: Pilot Project Successes: Building Information Modeling The BIM projects highlighted in the GSAs submission under Pilot Project Successes established new levels of excellence in the drive to improve the facility lifecycle through technological and managerial means (Ho 2007). The GSA accomplished approximately 20 pilot projects that fell into four major categories in their submission. These included the following

PAGE 56

56 categories with the number of projects highlighted in the submission next to the category in parentheses: 3 D Laser Scanning (7); 4 D P hasing (3); Energy Performance (3); Circulation Validation (1). Through the GSAs implementation of over 20 pilot projects using an array of BIM technologies across the country, their organization showed documented and quantifiable improvements in qua lity, efficiency, and cost savings in 2006. This entry highlighted a few of the successes from uncovering and mitigating errors and omissions, predicting potential obstacles and their impacts, introducing better design solutions, enhancing tenant and cont ractor communications, to optimizing budget and schedule options (Ho 2007) Consequently, the GSA pilot program provided a catalyst and strong incentives for industry participation to use BIM to aid their traditional approach in the facility lifecycle. The 3 D Laser Scanning projects (Figure 2 14) were successful because they were the best at automating accurate, as built data in instances where legacy data was incomplete or inaccurate or no data existed. The GSA felt that their 3 D laser scanning projects provided superior accuracy, non invasiveness, and cost and time savings. Their 3 D models created models of existing buildings with accuracy to 4mm in only a few hours work that contributed to the reduction in RFIs, errors, omissions, and redundant coordination. Furthermore, they used their 3 D laser scanning for verifying structural designs and found major errors that resulted in major savings and untold possible savings in liability or litigation in the future. Lastly, the GSA also applied their 3 D

PAGE 57

57 m odels to help customers visualize historic preservation and site context with respect to new projects (Figure 2 15). Figure 2 14. GSA: 3 D Laser Scanning Pilot Project benefits and details [Ho 2007) Figure 2 15 GSA: Progression of 3 D Laser Scanning Data A ) Init i al Scan B ) Converted into rudimentary exterior model C) Interior data authored [ Adapted from Ho 2007 ]

PAGE 58

58 The 4 D Phasing projects provided quantifiable benefits including the reduction in construction duration by 19% on one renovation project and in another, optimizing an 8.5 year schedule to 5.5 years by identifying viable new swing space. Qualitatively, the 4 D phasing improved coordination between tenant agencies and GSA during pre -bid conferences (see Figure 2 16). Figure 2 16. GSA: Example of 4 D Phasing improving visualization and planning for temporary tenant housing during renovation of IRS facility [Ho 2007) Regarding energy performance evaluation, the GSA found that their current energy modeling practices tended to under -predict energy performance, and subsequently, they were not meeti ng their energy consumption reduction targets. BIM based energy modeling approaches allowed for more automated transfer of information and predicted 3050% higher energy

PAGE 59

59 consumption than the traditional approach, so engineers were better able to pinpoint specific changes and inputs that would improve energy performance with great granularity and transparency in the process. Figure 2 17 shows the visualizations from the GSA pilot project, the 10-floor, 338,880 SF Salt Lake City Courthouse. Figure 2 17. GSA: Energy Performance Pilot Project A) Information about SLC pilot project B) Project screen captures [ Adapted from Ho 2007] The final category of pilot projects was those that focused on circulation validation. The sole project highlighted he re is the Department of Justice/Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts. The GSA thought that automating the process saved time, improved accuracy, led to better

PAGE 60

60 security and more reliable results. They were most interested in pursuing more efforts to ensure improved measures of safety for complex facilities like this court house project where there are competing security interests. This includes protecting judges, the public, prisoners from other prisoners, and even prisoners from the public. Simila r to their partnership with Stanfords CIFE on the 4 -D phasing jobs, the GSA partnered with Georgia Tech and Solibri on their circulation validation efforts, which they found to be a very successful partnership (Figure 2 18). Figure 2 18. GSA: Circul ation Validat ions: Collaboration/Expertise [ Adapted from Ho 2007 ] The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Another large owner implementing BIM is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Lieutenant General (LTG) Carl A. Strock, former USACE Headqu arters (HQ) Commander and Chief of Engineers, ushered in the initiative called the performance management system (PMS) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 (Strock 2006). Because this research involves evaluating performance according to metrics or KPIs, it is ther efore important to mention this USACE productivity initiative that seeks to integrate strategic and operational performance (Figure 2 19).

PAGE 61

61 USACE Metrics: The Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) program The metrics (or KPIs) that the USACE uses to rate how well they are performing according to the PMS are called the Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) metrics. The USACE evaluates their own performance internally on hundreds of metrics, from human resources to logistics. Included in this long list of me trics is a category called, Military Programs. As of FY 2007, there are now 20 different metrics tracked in the Military Programs category and Numbers 1 12 are listed below because they deal specifically with the metrics of interest in the construction phase of the facility lifecycle (Note: 13 20 primarily deal with environmental concerns not directly affiliated with construction, such as remediation): MP 1. Program e xecution forecast of c onstruction a wards ; MP 2. HQ Project Current Working Esti mate (CWE) to Programmed Amount (PA) ratio ; MP 3. Final d esign r elease by c ustomer ; MP 4. Ready to a dvertise (RTA) ; MP 5. Initial d esign r elease by c ustomer ; MP 6. Construction p roject c ost g rowth ; MP 7. Project c onstruction c ontract t im e g rowth ; MP 8. Project BOD t ime g rowth ; MP 9. Project c onstruction t imeline ( c onstruction d uration) ; MP 1 0 Project f inancial c loseout ; MP 1 1 In -h ouse d esign p ercentage; MP 1 2 Sustainable d esign and d evel opment (SDD) Narrowing the field even further, the primary CCG metrics listed in the USACE construction administrators automated management application, called the Resident Management System

PAGE 62

62 (RMS) are metrics MP 6 through MP 10. From the RMS, geographi cally disparate construction mangers or contract administrators can add data or query Corps databases for real -time status updates on any of the active or completed projects in the USACE. Status is reported back in the following, simplified fashion: Green : CCG metric has met or is meet ing the goal ; Amber: CCG metric has not met the goal by a slight margin; Red : CCG metric has not been met and is not close to being met The report from RMS querying all on going projects for all Program Years, metrics MP 6 and MP 7 for the USACE are Amber with 91% for MP 6 and Red for MP 7 with a 76% rating (Figure 2 19). Figure 2 19. Project CCG Metrics, Corps wide, as of January 22, 2009

PAGE 63

63 For each specific metric and their accompanying, specific goals, projects ca n only meet or not meet the goal. However, for the regional Districts, or their higher sub regional headquarters called Divisions which consist of multiple Districts, the metric is expressed as a percentage of the sum total of number of on-going projects in program years (PYs) 0206 meeting the Cost Growth goal (Strock 2006). Then the average sum total when dealing with an entire District or Division is broken out into the green, amber, red ratings. For each metric, the performance level and the window s of opportunity for achieving a green rating vary accordingly. For example, for MP 6 Construction Project Cost Growth, the goal is to manage on-going MILCON Project construction through contract completion with no more than 5% total project cost gro wth (Strock 2006). Accordingly for a single project to achieve a green rating would require that the projects cost could grow no more than 5% for the sum of all construction cost growth from Military Construction (MILCON) funded contracts exe cuting a project (Strock 2006). If it did not meet this goal, the project would simply be classified as did not meet goal. However, collectively, an amber rating would be achieved for 8595% of the projects meeting the cost growth goal and a red ratin g would be applied for below 85% of the collective projects meeting the goal. As evidenced in the example in Figure 2 19, the Army is not meeting their goals. In fact, as of the date that report was queried on January 22, 2009, the USACE was red in four of the five metrics tracked in RMS, and, only achieved an amber rating in the last remaining non red metric. Clearly a change is needed and the army hopes to change this current level of performance. Strategically, the current initiative to meet the demands of the Department of Defense and the primary driver of all recent Army organizational changes can be attributed to Army Transformation. A program that piggybacks on Army transformation to support the

PAGE 64

64 infrastructure requirements dictated by Army Transformation is called MILCON Transformation. It is MILCON Transformation that drives most of the actions, and especially the recent initiatives towards change in the Army Corps of Engineers. MILCON Transformation From former USACE H Q Commander and Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General (LTG) Carl A. Strock, MILCON Transformation can be attributed to Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations & Housing) Joseph W. Whitaker. In November 2004, Secretary Whitaker directed the Corps of Engineers to develop a strategy and implementation plan in support of Army Transformation to provide the Army the ability to establish, reuse/re purpose facilities with minimum lead time, leverage private industry standards and practices, and red uce acquisition/lifecycle costs. His direction recognized the urgent need for a massive, multi year construction program to provide new facilities. The initiative developed in response to Mr. Whitakers task assignment is now known as MILCON Transformatio n and is an important element of the Armys Business Transformation. This strategy was worked out in partnership among the Corps of Engineers, the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, the Installation Management Agency, priva te industry and Mr. Whitakers office. Key elements include standardization in acquisition processes, standardization of the design of facilities and expanded opportunities for use of alternative construction methods such as manufactured building solutions (Strock 2007). With the sheer size and massive budget for the work that the USACE oversees, MILCON Transformation is poised to have far reaching implications The USACEs FY 08 Military Construction budget was $18.3 Billion with $7.7B for Army MILCON, $1. 6B for Air Force MILCON, $.74 B for the G lobal W ar O n T error (GWOT), $1.9B for DOD Construction, $2.2B Engineering and Design, $1.7B for Host Nation construction $412M for Research and

PAGE 65

65 Development (R&D) and $523 M for other assorted programs. These proje cts included w orldwide traditional MILCON projects such as Ranges, Barracks, Housing, Maintenance Facilities, Operations Facilities, Tr aining Facilities plus National Missile Defense, Chemical Demilitarization, Foreign Military Sales, and work on Host Nati on Constru ction Management and Oversight in places like Germany, Japan and Korea (Temple 2007). MILCON Transformation includes a disciplined emphasis on standardized facilities and is designed to provide soldiers with quality, sustainable facili ties less expensively, in less time and on time to allow the Army to meet its transformational schedules. Specifically, the Corps plans on 15% less cost on projects and 30% quicker time tables. With MILCON Transformation as the driver, the USACE has moved towards focusing on BIM as an answer to ameliorating past inefficiencies in design and construction. In turn, the USACE has focused a great deal of effort on implementing BIM. This comes from their formally promulgated mission and vision regarding BIM, ERDC TR 0610, Building Information Modeling (BIM): A Road Map for Implementation To Support MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or simply the USACE BIM Road Map as it has been called informally. Th e USACE BIM Road Map The BIM Road Map is a 96 page guide and requirements listing for successful BIM implementation in the Army Corps of Engineers a summary of its contents is included herein The USACE BIM Ro ad Map is a product jointly executed by the CADD/GIS Technology Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL), and Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC). While the BIM Road Map addresses many areas of possible contribution, the primary impetus for pursuing BIM, according to the authors, is to drive down costs and delivery time (Brucker et al. 2006). According to BIM Road Map contributor and

PAGE 66

66 Seattle District CAD/BIM Manager, Van Woods, (who managed one of the real world BIM pr ojects highlighted in the document) driving down costs and delivery time specifically meant that the USACE wanted to achieve economies of scale for repeatedly designing the same types of buildings, as well as in reducing the average 18-month time from award to ground -breaking that the Corps was experiencing. As seen in the title, the BIM Road Map was an attempt to support MILCON Transformation within the USACE. Also in the name of support for MILCON Transformation, the Army published a memorandum from Brigadier General (BG) Merdith W.B. Temple the Director of Military Programs, on March 06, 2006 regarding Realignment/Establishment of Centers of Standardization (COS), FY 06 (Temple 2006). In this memorandum, General Temple broke with the tra ditionally regionalized Division and District areas of expertise and established centers of standardization that would serve as design authorities for 42 different types of facilities in different Districts across the CONUS and even in Hawaii. The traditi onal model was for the Corps to focus on all MILCON and Civil Works projects within their region and contract out 75% of the work to contractors while retaining 25% of the design work in house. Now, under the joint COS and USACE BIM Road Map guidance, the 42 facility types will be designed via a BIM approach and altered to fit site conditions at each District. More importantly, each COS will establish regional Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts that will administer services associated with assigned fac ility types. This means that firms who win the original design solicitations for the BIMs for these 42 jobs will in essence have a contractual lock on the design services every time that building is modified and built in any USACE District in the United States, and that each District that serves as a COS will have an IDIQ to provide millions, and possibly billions, of dollars in services to construct these facilities across the United States. Quite simply the impact is staggering.

PAGE 67

67 However, the US ACE BIM Road Map is a step towards alleviating those fears by clearly spelling out lessons learned and best practices for Districts to follow when formulating their inhouse or contract led BIM efforts. Based on design work accomplished in the Seattle and Louisville Districts, the USACE BIM Road Map discusses the strength of BIM, as well as how best to implement it through a discussion of requirements, and both short term and long term strategic goals. Possibly the most beneficial to the technical or tact ical level BIM implementer are the Appendices which discuss the goals in depth, the specific implementation plan, dataset evolution instructions (file structure library recommendation), organizational recommendations, contract language, oversight and implementation guidance for working A -Es, personnel position descriptions, and other related roles and responsibilities. All in all the BIM Road Map would be beneficial to any BIM neophyte and is both concise and thorough in a way that most other documents o f its kind have not achieved. Of particular interest are A E firms technological requirements (i.e. software packages) when it comes to BIM. The USACE BIM Road Map addresses these concerns specifically by saying, USACE will maximize use of available pr oducts and training. Districts may use existing purchasing agreements (Enterprise Licensing Agreements [ELA]) to minimize the cost of implementing BIM (2006). Additionally, in the section, Customer Technology Requirements the document reads, As in th e past, when a District has a customer that has a requirement for BIM models that work in nonELA software, the district should plan to conduct training in that non ELA softwares BIM technology (2006). Specifically, in the most frequent case, where an A E firm or owner primarily use Autodesk software, rather than Bentleys TriForma applications, the Road Map reads, if the District foresees some customers requesting Autodesk BIM models of their COS facility type, they should prepare to maintain both Bent ley

PAGE 68

68 and Autodesk BIMs until reliable interoperability between the BIM packages is achieved (2006). However, all other cases direct that the USACE will develop BIM models in the Bentley TriForma format. However, rather than letting the software debate st ifle or limit production, at least the USACE has created policy that attempts to handle it as well as possible and is looking towards improving the process on a strategic level, as opposed to being mired in the technical details. USACE Road Map Timeline Fo r the USACE to fulfill their vision as stated in the USACE BIM Road Map, USACE will be a leader in using BIM to improve delivery and management of facilities for the nation, they have laid out a timeline for achieving increasing levels of maturity within their program. Their timeline is broken into four phases with the following indicators for success aligned with each phase: 2008: Initial Operating Capability (IOC) with eight USACE Centers of Standardization productive in BIM ; 2010: 90% Compliant with NBIMS and all districts productive in accordance with NBIMS ; 2012: NBIMS used for all projects as part of contract advertisement, award, and submittals ; 2020: Leverage NBIMS data for substantial reduction in cost and time of constructed facilities The USACE has created indicators that are both ambitious and realistic. By phasing their strategy, they have avoided the trap of over promising benefits that the technology cannot deliver. This also allows time for the culture within the USACE to change an d to gradually phase in BIM in the best, most practical way in a traditional spiral fashion, synonymous with success in IT implementation.

PAGE 69

69 In addition to the four phases, the USACE BIM Road Map includes seven Milestones for tracking their progress along the time continuum. As seen in Figure 2 20, the BIM Road Map has organized the four indicators mentioned above into the following seven milestones (Figure 220): 4 COS trained in BIM ; Remaining 4 COS t rained in BIM ; Non -COS Districts t rained in BIM ; 8 Standard Facilities in BIM r epository ; 90% Compliance with NBIMS ; All Districts using BIM ; NBIMS Used on all projects USACE BIM Road Map Appendixes Appendix A outlines six goals that build on the four phases and seven milestones discussed above. The se include: Goal 1: Establish m etrics for m easuring p rocess i mprovement ; Goal 2: Establish i nitial o perating c apability for BIM n o l ater than 2008; Goal 3: Establish f acility l ife -c ycle i nteroperability n o l ater than 2010; Goal 4: A chieve F OC u sing NBIMS b ased e -c ommerce n o l ater than 2012; Goal 5: Use NBIMS in a sset m anagement and O&M of Facilities no l ater than 2012; Goal 6: Leverage NBIMS t o a utomate l ife c ycle t asks n o l ater than 2020. The Army BIM Road Maps Appendix B has 18 sections discussing tactical level implementation concerns targeted at mid level managers at the district level. It reads like a BIM for Dummies guide might possibly read in that it fo cuses on specific, actionable steps for establishing a successful BIM program. Written in the first person, inclusive we approach,

PAGE 70

70 Appendix B serves not only as an instructional, but persuasive document to help USACE practitioners achieve successful transformation towards BIM -centric operations. Specific items of interest include recommendations for the BIM implementation team as well as requirements and salary ranges for the BIM modeling team once the program is established. The Army BIM Road Maps App endix C addresses concerns about dataset evolution instructions. This means that is primarily focuses on the most technical portion of modeling, data input and how that changes over a project. Consequently, this appendix references technical guidance s uch as Technical Report 01 6, September 2001 A/E/C CADD Standard, Release 2.0. Figure 2 20 USACE BIM Road Map: Short term Plan for implementing BIM with Milestones [Adapted from Brucker et al. 2006] This section also provides a graphic as seen in Figure 2 21 that helps managers visualize the cyclic process and nature of dataset evolution The Army BIM Road Maps Appendix D discusses specific concerns related to modeling workflow within the BIM Pit design team discussed earlier in the body of the document. This section references the Louisville Districts modeling workflow diagram shown in Figure 221.

PAGE 71

71 Figure 2 21 USACE BIM Road Map: Data set evolution graphic [Adapted from Brucker et al. 2006] Figure 2 22 is important because it shows that the end goal is still the tra ditional Construction Documents (CDs) including floor plans, sections, elevations, etc., but it also addresses the iconoclastic approach to modeling the building virtually in order to arrive at the desired end state. One added benefit of the new, BIM appr oach is the ability to accomplish interference checks as discussed in the Road Map. The document advises modelers to use Bentley Navigator together with Bentleys Interference Manager. It is used to locate problems in the model where two objects are occupying the same physical space (USACE 2006). Lastly, it also addresses the continued need for traditional media such as CDs and list s the required specific drawing requirements with further descriptions about what to include and how to include the information from the model in the drawings. The Army BIM Road Maps Appendix E, A/E Contract Language and Appendix F, District Oversight and A -E BIM Implementation Guidance are currently blank. Hopefully, the USACE will populate these portions with boilerplate contract language and guidance for all 42

PAGE 72

72 COS districts can use when soliciting for a BIM for their standard facility types, becau se this would be invaluable in helping expedite the RFP drafting process for this work. Figure 2 22 USCAE BIM Road Map: Example workflow used by Louisville BIM design team [Adapted from Brucker et al. 2006] The Army BIM Road Maps Appendix G lists specific language for soliciting for a new position description (PD) for a Civil Engineering Technician as used at the Louisville District. In line with most other standard government PDs, it discusses portions of time that the individual will spend on certain tasks. This particular position description addresses database management 25%, project execution 30%, training 20%, and program management 25%. The Army BIM Road Maps Appendix H is comprised entirely of the FY 06 COS memo as discussed earlier in this section and Appendix I, BIM Related Roles and Responsibilities consists of a listing of contacts predominantly in the USACE that can help individuals provide guidance on implementing BIM. In all, the USACE BIM Road Map is a highly valuable piece of work because of its ability to convey large amount of pertinent information in succinct ways. The document has a

PAGE 73

73 metaphorical finger on the pulse of the community and addresses nearly all the major questions currently posed about BIM in the AECO industr y. It is important to note that the USACE BIM Road Map is not the only document addressing the use of BIM in the Army. Additionally, there are other supporting documents that address specific BIM concerns, such as this recent Engineering and Construction Bulletin number 200615 linked from the whole building design guide (WBDG) dated December 26, 2006 (USACE ECB 2006). This evidence supports the fact that BIM has support not only from labs such as ERDC, but that the leadership supports BIM use in the day to day processes of the Corps on all projects. This specific letter focuses on what format BIM deliverables will take in order to be interoperable and compliant with geospatial data, such as coordinate systems, projections, and datum being defined in t he datas metadata (USACE ECB 2006). In all, the Army has the tools in place in order to have a very substantial BIM program in the near future. USACE BIM in the field However, the BIM Road Map and WBDG are not static documents, but living testament to the mission and execution plans for the USACE. In accordance with the direction in the BIM Road Map, the Corps held a five week training/coaching effort. According to said Sandy Wood, a U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center mechanical engineer oversee ing the BIM training, We were tasked with learning the new software and applying it to a medium child development center project. Since BIM contains mechanical, electrical, structural and architectural components, we brought in employees from all four dis ciplines for the training" (Takash 2007). Wood went on to say, Change orders usually account for 8 to 12 percent of the cost in a typical design project. A design done with BIM has been proven to reduce change orders to as little as 2 percent of the cons truction costs. In large dollar projects, this could easily add up to millions of dollars in savings (Takash 2007). While Woods source for proving change order reduction

PAGE 74

74 in the construction phase of projects designed with BIM -compliant software is not substantiated, the claim is one that is representative of the feeling most organizations have who are transitioning to BIM. That is, there are hopes for construction phase effects from design phase changes. However, to this point, little work has been d one to substantiate these claims. As the USACE moves from adoption to implementation of BIM, one of their primary proponents thinks that Facility Management (FM) is a future, unexplored niche for BIM. Lee Ezell of the Mason and Hanger Group out of Lexing ton, KY is mentioned in Chapter 4 for his contributions to the Louisville District in helping them to start their BIM program for the Army Reserve Program Office to address desired improvements in the design phase However, he also recently wrote a n article included in The Military Engineer the official journal of the Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) entitled, BIM for FM, where he discusses the benefits of BIM in the O&M phase. In his article, Ezell notes that while BIM has revamped building design it also has added benefits of: enhanced design through better coordination, improved imagery to spend more time on design and less on contract documentation, and BIM software reporting features that aid facility managers to better maintain their equipment (Ezell 2007). USACE BIM in FM: The COBIE initiative In addition to better mechanical design through BIM, Ezells (2007) primary argument for BIM as an FM enabler is that it is possible to generate user -friendly spreadsheets that c an be used to maintain equipment. This idea already has roots in the COBIE effort, or the Armys attempt to automate the handover and commissioning of a facility for Facility Managers. COBIE stands for Construction Operations Building Information Exchange and is an initiative spearheaded by Dr. William Bill East out of the Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) financed by USACE and located at the Civil Engineering and Research

PAGE 75

75 Laboratory (CERL) in Champaign -Urbana, Illinois. According to th e National BIM Standard Project Fact Sheet, COBIEs objective is to create both an IFC reference standard supporting the direct software information exchange and a spreadsheet that can be used to capture COBIE data for both renovation and capital projects (Brodt and East 2006). To date, COBIE has been fielded in test cases in the Seattle District into contract language, as well as at NASA on some renovation projects. Additionally, Robert Bradford of Burns & McDonnell provide d the COBIE team from ERDC wi th the first COBIE file that provides a near ly complete example of COBIE "design" and construction "installation" i nformation. While the Burns and McDonnell effort did not provide a complete project handover deliverable as is required in the Dep artment of State, Corps of Engineers, and GSA contracts, it is the first publicly available COBIE data that has been prepared. At the end of July, 2008, the COBIE initiative made a massive leap to the forefront of the industrys focus on tying BIM to FM. Titled the BIM Information Exchange Demonstration, and sponsored by the Federal Facilities Council, buildingSMART Alliance, and USACE at the National Academies of Science in Washington, D.C., the events purpose was to demonstrate the results of an emerging requi rements -based process that allows subject matter experts [to] define contracted information exchanges (East 2008). The live demonstrations conducted using commercial software and downloadable add on products showed that three contracted information excha nges, the Spatial Compliance Information Exchange (SCIE), Coordination View Information Exchange (CVIE), and Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE) could replace current paper or e -paper deliverables. Focusing on the COBIE demonstra tion, each software vendor conducted live demonstrations showing how the required

PAGE 76

76 data was exported from their software. Then, the final files were passed through a file checker program to test the quality and completeness of the exchange. Figure 2 23. FFC, bSA, and USACE BIM Information Exchange Demonstration July 2008 A) Comprehensive results B) R ank order [Adapted from East 2008] The results were slightly controversial because the product with the most market share (Revit) scored the lowe st in the course of the test. Additionally, there was no standardized facility or level of design, so some software vendors argued that others had used more simple designs or that their more complex designs used objects without interoperable IFC representations yet (e.g. fire sprinkler heads). All in all, the results can be seen in their comprehensive and rank order format in Figu re 2 23. In all, the US Army is leading federal government owners when it comes to driving transformation through BIM implementation. As

PAGE 77

77 is evident in their robust planning, organizational change, and research efforts, BIM has a strong foothold in their c urrent and future operations. The U.S. Coast Guard The United States Coast Guards (USCG) approach to BIM is entirely different than the USACE approach. Whereas the USACE approach is to help streamline their operations and enhance their COS approach, the USCG viewed BIM as an opportunity to aid their expansion. When the Coast Guard moved under the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 due to the new perceived threat of terrorist acts on United States soil as evidenced in the attacks of September 11, 2001, the USCGs operations tempo level grew accordingly. Associated with this increase in op erations were entirely new missions that the USCG did not have prior to 2002. Specifically, the new USCG mission to provide deep water surveillance brought with it the need for 35 unique sector command centers (SCCs). In a testimonial lauding the USCGs primary consultant for services in their BIM imitative, Onuma, Inc. J. M. Brockus, Lieutenant Commander, Chief, North Team, US Coast Guard commented, Onuma, Inc. he lped create a BIM tool that greatly assists with the design and construction processes of Sector Command Centers. This tool allows consistent programming nation wide and rapid decision making for development of budgets and staffing levels. The success of this BIM tool paved the way for its expansion into whole building programming site planning and design to support off -cycle crews for the Coast Guards newest Deep water National Security Cutters (Onuma 2007). Highlighted in the August, 2007 article, Architect Creates Design Synthesis Software, the Onuma Planning System (OPS) was described as allowing integration of vast amounts of information (Tardif 2007). Coupled with Tardifs praise, Onuma s OPS application and services for the USCG and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) received the highest scores on

PAGE 78

78 the NBIMS Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I -CMM) The I -CMM is a tool that was created by the NBIMS Testing Team in the fall of 2006 to answer the same question posed in research question #2 in this research, What types o f information can be leveraged in a BIM approach and to what degree? Figures 2 24 and 2 25 show the NBIMS Interactive -Capability Maturi ty Model score card for each submission respectively. Figure 2 24. OPS I CMM Score for USCG 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Figure 2 25. OPS I CMM Score for work with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGS) for 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award According to Tardif, O numas solution is a software tool the Onuma Planning System (OPS) that enables project teams to amass and synthesize programmatic information far more

PAGE 79

79 quickly than is p ossible with any current method (Tardif 2007). When asked to summarize his tool in o ne sentence, Tardif goes on to say that Onuma replied It allows you to test a lot of decisions early on and bump into problems early so that you can go in another direction (Tardif 2007). Figure 2 26 shows a stylized screen capture of the OPS tool. Figure 2 26. Various, Integrated Informa tion Conglomerated through OPS [Adapted from Hammond 2007] Specifically for the USCG, in the words of David Hammond, RLA, Chief, SFCAM Division Comman dant, USCG The integration of BIM, geospatial data, real pro perty data and mission requirements supports the need of a common operational picture for the USCG. This common operational picture can be real time tactical information as well as longer term strategic information, which was enable d by the architects use of BIM (Hammond 2007). In Hammonds briefing to the National Academy of Sciences Government/Industry Day October 31, 2006, he stated that BIM was not a technological aid to existing operations, but instead an identified IT-

PAGE 80

80 enabler used in the course of o rganizational change and reenginee red processes (Hammond 2006). In the USCGs self -titled IT -enabled enterprise framework they moved away from building centric and project focused approaches in favor of a portfolio based, business process linked to strategic outcomes. They integrated their individual asset portfolios such as buildings, cutters, aircraft, logistics, IT and HR and instead sought continuous horizontal flow across the organization ( Hammon d 2006). In order to evaluate their progress on their organizational transformation, the USCG set distinct, measurable goals including the following: Moving from a locally focused sub-optimized facility engineering perspective to an enterprise -wide asset a nd portfolio management organization focused on managing $7.5B in plant replacement value (PRV) ; Achieving 17% to 33% in recurring savings in annual services delivery ; Achieving CFO Act Audit Certification (Sarbanes/Oxley) The answer to this was a focus o n horizontal cross -functional alignment (Figure 2 2 7 ). Cross -functional management recognizes that process must be treated as a strategic corporate priority, competition is won be treating all parts of the organization as a single unified whole, and criti cal cross -functional shore infrastructure process must be managed by process managers. In turn, the USCG moved their focus to linking and aligning their process with daily tactical activities and agency -wide strategic outcomes (Figure 2 27 and 2 28).

PAGE 81

81 F igure 2 27 USCG Organizational Transformation to Horizontal Cross Functional Alignment [Adapted from Hammond 2007] Bringing the business philosophy back to IT approaches, the USCG combined a BIM approach with their existing Geospatial Inf ormation Systems (GIS) strategy to manage the information that helped them align with their operational requirements, infrastructure capability, and organizational needs in an application called the Capital Asset Management Portal (CAMP) (Figure 2 2 9 and 2 32). Figure 2 28 USCG Process Reengineering t o Vertical Value Chain [ Hammond 2007]

PAGE 82

82 This portal gives them access to an enterprise -wide aggregated database and graphics used for both portfolio management/historical data applications as well as scena rio based business case development and an automated planning tool for real time mission readiness. ( Hammond 2007). CAMP uses, and provides access to, geo rectif ied raster information like Google Earth Keyhole Markup Language (kml) data, floor plans and space utilization information like ArchiCAD/XML files, and planning functionality through the Onuma Planning System (OPS) which works with tabular data and provide s visual representations of facility planning via Sketch up. The USCG has demonstrated the functionality of CAMP through routine business processes such as integrated planning for physical reorganization or design charrettes for new construction requireme nts. Additionally, another area where the USCG is ahead of many of its peers is its focus on using BIM not only in the design phase, but as a tool to manage and leverage legacy data for day to -day operations and maintenance of their facilities. In fact, t he USCG proudly promulgates that they are the only owner with 100% of their real property stored in individual and portfolio -wide BIMs. In order to accomplish this, they created BIM -blobs for all their existing facilities and are gradually adding data t o the blobs as mission requirements dictate and time allows (Figure 2 30). One area where the USCG is similar to the USACE is their adoption of boilerplate designs for standardized facility types. While not as archaic as the kit of parts post offices of the late 20th century, they do represent a definite philosophical shift from the idea that all buildings are unique works of art. While some may think that this would be contrary to traditional architects views of architecture, this was not the case Rather, the USCG received

PAGE 83

83 national acclaim as the 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winner in the Design/Delivery Process Category for BIMs. As the primary consultant to the USCG in their BIM imitative, Kimon Onumas submission for the award more than adequately summarizes the USCG approach: As architects and planners we solved the need of the projects and created a process for collaborating with the client in a way that integrated data and maximized value for the full lifecycle. Also as software developers we con nected the dots, using data and knowledge efficiently thus leaving more time f or creativity in design. The by-product is a more susta inable process of collaboration and better stewardship of building information for the client. The architectural charette was turned inside out. Each session accumulated knowledge of the group, built upon the last, and unified decision making. All decisions were captured in the web enabled BIM. This process created a virtual ongoing process and unified all the projects in re al time. Critical decisions can be made very early on in design and captured for the full life cycle of the project. New workflows were defined and data exchanges made possible. The integrated practice was made possible using interoperable standards define d Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). (Onuma 2007) Figure 2 29 USCG CAMP Application: Various screen shots of integrated geospatial and facility level views [Adapted from Hammond 2007]

PAGE 84

84 Figure 2 30. USCG Stepped Strategy of Data Collection and Modeling [Adapted from Hammond 2007] The primary project included designing one 3,500 SF SCC and repeating the process for the 35 unique SCCs with one methodology which included a BIM se rver with access for multiple users to view and edit sub -sets or entire models on multiple project sites in real time (Onuma 2007). Ironically, the SCCs even used a kit of parts mentality but only where it made sense. This approach was primarily us ed on the internal configurations for command and control portions of the SCCs. Logically, optimization through standardization could best be achieved at the micro level of human interaction in the command center. In stark contrast, the building models t hemselves were highly customized to meet the needs of the geographically disparate and climatologically diverse individual SCCs themselves through direct input from the users (Figure 2 31).

PAGE 85

85 Figure 2 31 Onuma Planning Systems, Inc.: Automatic BIM G eneration from Program Requirements from multiple users via the web [Adapted from Hammond 2007] In Onumas words, Users began creating [a] BIM as a by -product of the process. Data was accessible in real time through a web interface to al l in the process, not just BIM experts, but architects, engineering, owners, and others. The input and decisions were supported through the web Whether at milestones during the process or at the processes culmination; senior level planners could pe rform reporting, see visual output of their coordination, or even visualize the results of their work through overlaid renderings via key -hole markup language ( KML ) files in Google Earth (Onuma 2007). In all, the USCGs recent strategic level efforts to transform their organizational climate and improve their value chain have resulted in tactical level business processes that are light years ah ead of the industry. Their recognition as the AIA 2007 BIM Award winner for Design/Delivery Process Innovation may not be matched by any traditional firm or owner for years to come. However, what is most important to learn from the USCG case study in BIM is not the specific tool or even data output, but the prominence that the technology took as an

PAGE 86

86 enabler for organizational transformation. True technological success will always and only be found in close proximity of truly successful leadership. Figu re 2 32 Onuma Planning Systems, Inc.: Multiple Benefits from CAMP with abilities for reporting, geospatial awareness, and coordination [Hammond 2007] Figure 2 33 Onuma Planning Systems, Inc.: New Forms of Collaboration and/or Partnering as archi tects, software developers, and real estate manage [ Hammond 2007 ]

PAGE 87

87 The U.S. Air Force The U.S. Air Force move towards Building Information Modeling came later than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Instead, the U.S. Air Forces primary focus was on asset management in the form of improving their geospatial mapping products and capabilities from the year 2000 until the present day. GeoBase: the USAF initiative to manage geospatial installation data Some visionary mapping experts tried to field GIS maps in relative isolation at different Air Force bases, but with limited and varied success. It was not until Air Force general officers collectively saw the benefits of GIS in October of 2000 that the Air Force fully embraced the idea that there was a much bet ter way to mapping. In May 2001, after the culmination of the aforementioned Colonel Brian Culliss research at the Air Universitys Air War College, the Air Force Chief of Staff formally instructed Air Force installations to adopt Culliss GeoBase Init iative, the Air Force all encompassing term for implementing GIS to aid in expeditionary and garrison operations. Now, only five years later in 2006, current base mapping standards set forth by the Headquarters Air Force GeoIntegration Office (HAF/GIO) di ctate that Air Force installations use high resolution (usually 1 meter or better resolution) panchromatic raster imagery to serve as the basis for highly accurate (sub centimeter) installation maps. While there are many cultural, educational, and financi al impediments inhibiting any large scale technological change, the Air Force and the DoD have been successful in adopting and furthering GIS, possibly more than any other entity involved in GIS today. With the aftermath of September 11 th and military de ployments to many new locations in tense political climates, GIS has served as a force multiplier for DoD personnel. The DoD no longer avoids GIS, but instead, thrives on the benefits of wide scale implementation and standardization.

PAGE 88

88 Drilling down from th e macro level data that these highly accurate maps provide, the DoD now faces another challenge to make their facilities data as rich and robust as their installation map data. The daunting task of devising a process to standardize the decentralized ex ecution of the DoDs technological applications has already been overcome in the arena of standardizing DoDs approach to digital mapmaking in the Spatial Data Standards for Facilities Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE) SDSFIE are graphic and non -graphic standards for GIS implementations within the DoD and provide a standardized grouping of geographically referenced (i.e., geospatial) features (USACE WES 2006). Just as a librarian may use the Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Systems to organi ze millions of works of literature into a finite number of groupings, the SDSFIE serve as a guide for DoD map makers to properly catalog the myriad of geospatial data available at any DoD installation or deployed location. With the bulk of military person nel serving in positions for limited periods of time, the SDSFIE serve to ensure that all maps military members work with are all created equally. This same thought process and methodology could (and should) be applied to data stored in a BIM, so that a ll personnel who work with the data would have a basis for understanding how to retrieve, use, and edit the data. The USAF metric initiative for MILCON excellence: Ribbon Cutter Metrics In the beginning of Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, the USAF initiated a program to try to reward productivity improvement in their MILCON program through recognition tied to metrics called Dirtkicker metrics. After undergoing a name change for FY09, the program became known as the Ribbon Cutter metrics and awards. This prog ram is beneficial to the USAF for measuring their construction excellence from a strategic level. The USAF approach is very similar to the USACE approach in that it uses high level metrics such as cost growth, time growth, and financial closeout to monito r the performance of their MILCON projects. One area where the

PAGE 89

89 USAF approach contrasts with the USACE approach is that they go a step further from just documenting the delta and use the Major Commands (MAJCOMs) performance as values in an equation that result in recognizing stellar performance. This is how the winner is calculated. First, MAJCOMs are divided into two groups: small and large. Then, MAJCOMs can receive award points in four main areas: design, award, construction, and financial closure These four categories are further broken down into subcategories as presented in Figure 2 34. Figure 2 34. FY09 Ribbon Cutter Criteria Categories and Subcategories [Adapted from Shibaro 200 9 ] To normalize scores, the total score is calculated as an average percentage of all competing categories using the weights as listed in Figure 2 34. In this way, MAJCOMs are not rewarded or penalized for not having anything to report in certain subcategories.

PAGE 90

90 In all, there are awards for both the large an d small MAJCOM with the highest percentage score, as well as the most improved large and small MAJCOM. However, MAJCOMs cannot win both the overall award and the most improved award, nor can they win the most improved award in two consecutive years. Last ly, the most improved award will only go to the MAJCOM with highest positive percentage improvement over the previous fiscal year. The USAF Dirtkicker Awards are on the right track: through a pragmatic, strategic, and quantitative rewards system, they are fostering a culture of construction excellence that strives for continuous improvement. Dynamic Prototyping In order to ensure continuous improvement in line with technology like BIM, the U.S. Air Force Center for the Engineering and the Environment (AFCE E) experienced several events that turned their potential BIM energy into kinetic energy in the spring of 2008. Most importantly, the Chief of the Design Branch, Mr. Gene Mesick, was successful in securing seed funding to field a pilot project to testing the USAF concept, Dynamic Prototyping. Dynamic Prototyping moves forward from standardized design types and standards included in the USAF section of the WBDG to create parametric 3 D geometry of the tabular information espoused in the in the gu ide. For instance, rather than talking about the standard functions contained in a Fire Station or Flight Simulator, there would exist BIM legos that could be assembled into a final building design more rapidly. Work is underway to integrate Dynamic Prototyping into the U.S. Air Force Business Process Reengineering and transformation efforts under the evolving Agile Installation Management (AIM) initiative.

PAGE 91

91 CENTCOMM HQ, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida: USAF BIM pioneer In the summer of 2008, Lt Col Jay Jim Beam of HQ CENTCOMM at MacDill AFB in Tampa, Florida promulgated his vision for the future of their $65M new headquarters building. After accomplishing the twin JICCENT building in the fall of 2008, design began on the CENTCOM building (Figure 2 35). Figure 2 35. New JICCENT facility and future HQ CENTCOMM facility location on MacDill Air Force Base, Florida [Adapted from B eam 2008] Wanting to avoid making the same mistakes again, Lt Col Beam wanted to turn the CENTCOM project into a flag ship project that moved MacDill in the right direction. Because of this desire and before the design was completed, the project was specified as a LEED Silver or better project, a BIM -based project able to handle changing user requirements and providing s uperior visualization abilities for General Officers, as well as a COBIE deliverable upon

PAGE 92

92 handover for superior FM capabilities. As of September, 2008, the project was going to be designed in Revit Structure and Revit Architecture, with MEP in AutoCAD MEP 2008 and integrated into the model in Navisworks. Additionally, the model was to be used for the LEED process and structural analysis. Lastly, and most unique about the project, the BIM data was to be used in conjunction with building handover and commi ssioning data in order to make an extremely robust database available in Autodesks FM Desktop or NavisWorks FM application for this facility. Working with the USACE ERDC, CERL, Mobile District, AFCEE, the University of Florida, and Burns & McDonnell (the A/E), Lt Col Beam is still working to meet his vision. The U.S. Navy The Naval Facilities Engineering Command or simply NAVFAC is the primary stakeholder and BIM proponent in the U.S. Navy. Their initial BIM effort is aptly labeled a grass roots effort. At the time of publication, an enterprise -wide or portfolio BIM information management approach is beginning to materialize in the Navy the way it has in the Army and the Coast Guard. In fact, a 2007 web search for BIM related work in the U.S. Navy yields little results except for a pilot project from Mr. Alex Viana of Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) at the Engin eering Service Center. However, this project was unique in that it crossed a difficult boundary: from geospatial to building information model. Mr. Vianas project set out to describe a step by step process to produce virtual 3 D waterfront facility mod els (Figure 2 36) of the Navys built environment from existing facility data (Viana 2007). Also, a leading Jacksonville -based design -build firm, The Haskell Company, used Revit to design a U.S Navy Training facility in Virginia. However, the companys engineers and architects are trained as needed for specific projects, so only a dozen of Haskells design professional are really proficient in BIM (Van House n 2008).

PAGE 93

93 Figure 2 36. Samples of NAVFACs Web based 3 D Geospatial Facility Model Data Interfaces [Adapted from Viana 2007] However, in 2008, after talking to the most recent BIM Manager for the USN, Dean McCarns, the USNs current approach to BIM i s much more strategic in nature than the grass roots efforts described above. Because of the highly entrenched facility management databases in the USN, their BIM approach will seek to find the proper use of their existing information and where to best ca pitalize on information exchanges. In particular, one item of note for the USN is that they feel that pilot projects are wastes of money and cause more confusion than theyre worth (McCarns 2008). Therefore, they are progressing cautiously and are plan ning not to fully unveil their plan for five years. Conclusion BIM is rapidly becoming the standard for transforming the way facilities are programmed, designed, built, operated, and disposed and disassembled. The federal government is one of the leading owners driving the transformation.

PAGE 94

94 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Impetus In 2008, gross spending in the U.S. construction industry was estimated to be $1.28 trillion. According to the National BIM Standard, s ixty percent (60%) or $600 bil lion of this spending was most likely waste from inefficiencies caused by information sharing deficiencies or rework (NBIMS 2008). Internationally, the construction industry is one of the largest indu stries in the world. Other large, international industries such as aviation, manufacturing, and travel have enjoyed productivity increases through Information Technology (IT) business re engineering. More importantly, re -engineering efforts have yielded productivity gains through simulation, web technology, and information standards use. Conversely, the US construction industry demonstrated a significant productivity decline since 1964 (Figure 3 1). There are many theories regarding the causes for this trend, however, one work in particular has received the most attention. The 2004 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) documented a probable loss of $15.8 Billion annually due to interoperability problems associated with current technolog ical approaches used in the industry. This study fueled the efforts of the already ongoing work of the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI), a group of internationally affiliated members of the Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Ope rations (AECO) community. More importantly, it brought the issue to the forefront for the American AECO community, who were up to this point, primarily unaware of this important issue. The collective, international approach to solving this problem was th e IAI -sponsored, and now known as the buildingSMART initiative, and it focuses attention on a two pronged solution:

PAGE 95

95 1 Standardize the way information is transmitted, received, and stored electronically through Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) and chrono logically through Information Delivery Manuals (IDMs) 2 Build on standardized processes and increase the amount of technology used currently in the facility lifecycle to adopt the information exchanges and greater visualization afforded by a Building Inform ation Modeling (BIM) approach. Figure 3 1. Construction & Non Farm Labor Productivity Index (1964 2003). (Constant $ of contracts / workhours of hourly workers ) [Adapted from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics ] Historically, the AECO industrys efforts to implement and support better information flow between stakeholders with existing CAD systems have focused primarily upon format and output versus open information and workflows (i.e. a paper centric versus a process centric viewpoint.) BIM is a different transition than the move to CAD because CAD did not significantly alter business processes, but simply increased the speed at which centuries -old traditional tasks were completed through electronic means. This was comprised of digitizing a well known 2D -based design and paper -centric project delivery system (Livingston 2007). Even so, the transition to CAD was not merely a simple undertaking. This was primarily due to the

PAGE 96

96 information standardization needs and business stru ctures not being in place to maximize CAD until the National CAD Standard reached widespread implementation, which has only recently occurred. Therefore, CAD ultimately became a sub -optimized application that BIM is now addressing (NBIMS, 2007). BIM repr esents the hopes that industry stakeholders thought CAD was going to bring to fruition, but there is little, or possibly none at all, data that suggest these hopes are merited. Therefore, this research proposes to collect and interpret empirical data on the current leaders in applying BIM methodology, federal construction projects. As it is well known in the construction industry the success or failure of every c onstruction project can be measured in terms of four variables: cost, time, quality, and safety (Adrian 1995). This study t ook this idea a step further and attempt ed to see if BIM has any tangible effects on the leading Key Performance Ind icators (KPIs) (Cox et al. 2003) used to measure construction success. The leading KPIs used in this research were gleaned from a study by Cox et al. (2003) that surveyed a wide range of construction companies with 166 total responses to determine managem ents perception of construction KPIs. KPIs are defined as compilations of data measures used to assess the performance of a construction operation. The research noted that six primary KPIs were reported as being most useful by every segment of the c onstruction industry involved. Therefore, this research only measures impacts according to these six KPIs described in greater detail later in this chapter. Methodology Overview This research was accomplish ed in four phases. These four phases w ere aligned with a process originally created by United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd. Information Management (IM) professionals have often used Boyds model, which is widely known as the

PAGE 97

97 OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act) to demonstrate the continual improvement process of strategic decision making. The OODA Loop w as used here to structure the methodology for the data collection portion of this research. Boyd developed the theory based on his earlier experience as a fighter pilot and he initially used it to explain victory in air -to air combat B ut in the la ter years of his career ; he expanded his OODA Loop theory into a grand strategy with benefits to anyone who needs to pragmatically and quickly process informat ion. Colonel Boyds philosophy dictated that individually, people will observe unfolding circumstances and gather outside information in order to orient the ir decision making system to perceived threats. Boyd states that the orientation phase of the loop is the most important step, because if decision makers perceive the wrong threats, or misunderstand what is happeni ng in the environment, then the decision makers will orient their thinking in erroneous directions and eventually make incorrect decisions. Boyd said that this cycle of decision-making could operate at different speeds for different organization s but the g oal is to complete the OODA Loop process at the fastest tempo possible. However, in this research, it was used to make the best, n ot necessarily the fastest, choices about the proper items to collect and investigate Through Boyds OODA Loop; this research w as structured in four phases aligned with the ideas of observation, orientation decision and action (Figure 3 2) Resear ch Phase I: Observation At the beginning of Phase I in 2006, BIM was not yet widespread in the US Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) industry. Specifically, the 2006 iteration of the annual AIA Firm Survey indicated that only 16% of the firms surveyed had acquired BIM

PAGE 98

98 Figure 3 2. Col John Boyd, USAF (Ret.), OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action). A) Detailed B) Simplified. software and that only 10% of the firms were using the software for bill able work. But, by the end of 2008, the McGraw -Hill Smart Market Report on BIM and Interoperability reported that 62% of users surveyed indicated that they will be using BIM on over 30% of their projects in 2009 (Gudgel 2008). However, with little empiri cal data regarding BIM s application and use in 2006, a qualitative survey was administered to garner initial data about practitioners perceptions about the effects of BIM on construction key performance indicators (KPIs) in addition to the traditional re view of literature in the field. This survey data was used to determine current BIM practices and perceptions to formulate additional research hypotheses for use in Phase II. Phase I included publishing a web -based survey with the sole purpose of garneri ng industry stakeholders impressions of BIMs effect on construction through specific construction metrics based on six (6) primary, quantitative construction KPIs: Quality Control, On time Completion, Cost, Safety, $/Unit, Units/Manhour as determined in a 2003 study by Cox et al. (2003). In this way, qualitative industry perceptions were quantified. The survey was hosted on

PAGE 99

99 http://www.zoomerang.com through an account login funded by the National Institute of Building Sciences, Facility Information Counc il (NIBS FIC). In concert with the National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Committee testing team, a subset of the NIBS FIC, this data was shared for their own empirical research. Figure 3 3. Excerpt from first email to FIC listserv notifying the launch of th e survey. (Note: Notice the excerpt from the FIC website inside the email) Survey Iterations #1 and #2: Web based Three iterations of a similar survey were launched for the purpose of collecting targeted respondents perceptions about impact of BIM on construction KPIs This section discusses all three iterations of the survey and describe s the logistics of how each survey was drafted, fielded, and closed out. Results can be found in the C hapter F our, Results.

PAGE 100

100 After receiving University of F lorida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) authority, the first iteration of the survey was available from March 5, 2007 until April 5, 2007 and was advertised to the NIBS FIC NBIMS Committee. This sample group was chosen because they are knowledgeable abo ut BIM and have a high likelihood for providing actionable data. In order to garner maximum participation from existing and new members, the survey was advertised in two different ways: direct email through a distribution list and a website advertisement on the NIBS -FIC/BIM website where people join the committee. First, an email was sent to the FIC listserv distribution list (Figure 3 4 ). Figure 3 4. Excerpt from reminder email to FIC listserv for people to complete the survey This listserv had 104 members from across the AECO industry at the time of the surveys launch. Halfway through the month -long survey availability, a reminder email was sent to the listserv asking for more people to complete the survey or for those who had started the survey to complete the survey (Figure 3 4). The second method of garnering qualified respondents was to advertise the survey on the NIBS FIC website (at that time, but has since been moved to the

PAGE 101

101 buildingSMART Alliance webpage) http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim under their N EWS portion (Figure 3 3) Since most people only happen upon this website when signing up to join the NIBS -FIC NBIMS committee, and this website is only advertised in the AECO community, the possibility of tainting the data was considered negligible. Through this methodology, the survey was administered to a sort of Delphi Panel of expert practitioners who are highly knowledgeable in BIM. After assessing their input, it can be compared to the second iteration of the survey, a version that sought to garner as many inputs as possible from across the AECO industry. First the original survey was edited according to input as recommended by respondents in the fir st iteration of the survey. The only two noticeable changes were : Including a new organizational role for academic professionals ; Rewording the impact choices on some of the KPI responses to be more clear about what was a negative or positive response ; Ad ding more possible definitions to the final question about which definition most suited the respondents perceived definition of BIM This final edit was made because it was deemed necessary in order to determine if different organizational roles had perce ptions that collectively differed from other organizational roles, as well as the goal of adding more possible distracters from the originally limited set of possible answers. Then, a press release about the survey was drafted and submitted to the follo wing media outlets or organizations with varying levels of advertising or success (Figure 3 5): The Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) ; The American Institute of Architects (AIA) ; The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) ; The American Society of Civil Engineers Construction Institute (ASCE -CI); The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ;

PAGE 102

102 The Society of American Military Engineers ; The Architects, Engineers, and Contractors (AEC Caf) website and newsletter ; The Geographical Informat ion Systems (GIS Caf) website and newsletter ; The upFront eZine (sic) ; The Science and Technology for Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Annual BIM Conference (AEC ST, May 1517, 2007) in Anaheim, CA Figure 3 5. Iteration #2 of the sur vey went out with a standardized press release to a myriad of organizations and media outlets The survey then also appeared in areas that must have been secondary media outlets to the organizations or media outlets listed above, because the press release also showed up in places that were not directly contacted by the researcher, such as the Builders Association Newsletter in Chicago, Illinois. Survey Specifics The survey was divided into four sections (Figure 3 6): Part I: Basic Demographic Information ; Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs ; Part III: Ranking KPIs ; Part IV: Free Answer Part I was intended to find descriptive information about the respondents, to ensure that they were qualified to answer the questions, and to group answers from similar respondents

PAGE 103

103 together across the data pool (Figure 3 7). Most questions were standard for surveys such as gender, age, and the state where the respondent resided. Questions especially germane to the research were the following which were tar geted at collecting the respondents educational level, annual company revenue, and peoples organizational role. Regarding organizational role, respondents were asked to make a selection from a list based on the organizational roles listed in Table 3 4 of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI 2007). Figure 3 6. Survey Introduction and overview First, respondents were asked to select their overarching organizational role, and then the survey skipped to the question that addressed the proper organizational role with a follow up question formulated to find out the specific role the respondent filled on a daily basis. These

PAGE 104

104 choices also came from the CSIs (2007) Omniclass Table 3 4 for organizational roles (Figure 3 8 and 3 9). Figure 3 7. Part I: Basic Demographic Information

PAGE 105

105 Figure 3 8. Part I: Basic Demographic Information, cont. Figure 3 9. Part I: Basic Demographic Information, cont. (Note: Question 6 was set up with Zoomerangs skip logic so that peoples customized organizational role answer would direct them to their correct specific position question and dropdown menu in question 7) Part II of the survey served as the beginning of the primary data collection instrument (Figure 3 10). This part asked q uestions on each of the six construction KPIs in various formats with varying scales of favorable to unfavorable perceptions regarding the impact of BIM on construction. In this way, the possibility of errant responses from people just putting the maximum answer down for every question was avoided. At the beginning of Part II, respondents were asked to rate their perception of BIMs impact on the list of six construction key performance indicators. Specifically, question #14 of the survey addressed BIMs impact on

PAGE 106

106 units per man hour. Units per man hour were defined for respondents as measure of completed units (typically square footage) put in place per individual man hour of work. The respondents choices of answers ranged on a 5 point Likert scale f rom least favorable to most favorable with the following possible choices: Severely Inhibits Lessens No Effect Improves Maximizes 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 3 10. Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs

PAGE 107

107 The next question, #15, asked for the same perception about BIMs impact on dollars per unit (cost per square foot ($/SF)) with the same choices on the 5 -point Likert scale. Question #16 asked about safety. Regarding safety, respondents were asked to read the following st atements and choose the one that most closely matches your view of BIMs effect on safety. The answers, with regard to lost man -hours, were again arranged on a 5 -point Likert scale: Eliminates Lessens No Effect Increases Greatly Increases 1 2 3 4 5 The next question, #17, had to do with cost. Cost was defined as cost variance in actual costs to budgeted costs. Here there were five sub -questions under this one question that centered on different types of costs including: General Conditions, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP), Finishes, and Overall. Here, respondents could choose from a 5 point Likert scale, as well as the additional choice of Not Applicable or N/A. The 5 -point Likert sca le had the following choices: Max Var :($ Lost) Worsens No Effect Improves Max Var: ($ Saved) 1 2 3 4 5 Question #18 focused on on time completion. The response options were similar to those for question #17 with the exception of variance equating to a late project on the unfavorable side of the scale to max variance early on the favorable side of the scale. The final question in Part II, #19, asked respondents what they thought about BIMs impact on quality control/rewor k. This question prepared the respondent for answering by saying, quality control can be defined as percent (%) of rework in ($) compared to overall cost in ($). The choices were: Increases Rework Worsens No Effect Improves Nearly El im. Rework 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 108

108 Part III of the survey was structured to determine whether there was any one construction KPI which BIM impacted more than any other in a logical ranking fashion, so that it could be investigated more thoroughly in Phase II of the research while collecting case study data. Respondents were asked to rank the KPIs on a Likert scale from 1 10. This means that 1 would be a score showing that BIM inhibited construction to 5 equaling no effect to 10 showing the most improvemen t (Figure 3 11) Figure 3 11. Part III: Ranking KPIs Part IV of the survey was intended to gather open ended responses from respondents that could help identify problems with the current survey, necessary points to investigate in future

PAGE 109

109 surveys, receive contact information if people wanted specific follow up information, and give respondents a chance to express themselves if they felt the survey stifled their responses in any way. The Summary portion of the survey was intended to determine respondents personal definition of Building Information Modeling. There were four choices, including one response; Dont Know which was a response intended to eliminate unqualified respondents from tainting the data pool (Figure 3 12). The other choices included: BIM is 3 D CAD ; BIM is a tool for visualizing and coordinating A/E/C work and avoiding errors and omissions ; BIM is an open standards based info repository for facilities lifecycles Figure 3 12. Part IV: Free Response, Summary, and Thank You screen capture

PAGE 110

110 Survey Iteration #3: BIM4Builders Conference Attendees The third iteration of the survey was based of the same goal to determine respondents perceptions about where BIM impacted construction. However, this iteration of the surv ey was different in its execution. A hard copy version of the survey was given to the BIM4Builders Conference attendees on check in for the May 2008 Conference. Therefore, the survey was issued approximately one year after the first two iterations of th e survey. Also, in order to ensure respondents were capable of completing the survey in an expedient manner, the hard copy survey was edited to fit on one page. The original sample of the hard copy survey can be found in Appendix B. The survey consiste d three sections. The first asked simple questions about basic demographic information. The second asked respondents to rank the same six KPIs on a scale from 110, and the third asked respondents to choose the BIM definition that was closest to their ow n. Research Phase II: Orientation Phase II includes reducing the survey data collected in Phase I and test ed the primary research hypothesis by conducting research on-site at two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts. The rationale behind this rese arch is that federal entities have provided testbeds for implementing new ideas and new technologies in the past in the field of construction. While federal work has not always led the way on implementing new technological initiatives, recent strides in t he General Services Administration (GSA), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and United States Coast Guard (USCG) demonstrate that they are exceeding typical industry BIM adoption with a much higher adoption rate. However, despite recent promulgation of BIM procedures in documents like the GSA BIM Guide Series and USACE BIM Roadmap, there is little empirical evidence documented regarding BIMs impact on the construction phase of the

PAGE 111

111 facility lifecycle. Therefore, this research proposes to evaluate BIM effec ts on federal construction projects according to the KPI metrics evaluated in the survey (Table 2 1). Research Phase III: Decision After interviewing the key stakeholders at locations where pilot BIM projects have been accomplished, the research mo ve d forward by establishing a model to statistically assess and analyze the data from the pilot projects (variable) compared to data of similar construction projects in size and scope (control population). Phase III include d revisions and changes to the data collection model applied to a greater cross section of construction projects. Phase III also entail ed comparing the data garnered in Phases I and II regarding perceptions compared to the statistical data in Phase III. It is proposed in Chapter Six that in the future, t his would be accomplished by using data collected and maintained by research bodies such as the USACE Civil Engineering Resident Management System (RMS) administrators. Lastly, the data w as analyzed to determine if trends exist that demonstrate statistically significant differences in productivity or performance according to generally accepted practices. Table 2 1. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) m etrics and their associated measurement values KPI Metric Measurement Value Quality Control Percent Rework in $ of total project cost On time Completion Overall Project Duration Variance Cost Percent Cost Variance Safety Lost Man Hours due to injury $/Unit $/Square Foot Units/Manhour Square Foot/Manhour The specific locat ions where on-site research w ere accomplished are: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District ; U .S. Coast Guard Group, Charleston, South Carolina

PAGE 112

112 Research Phase IV: Action In Phase IV, after the bulk of the data collection, the lessons learned from conducting the embedded research w ere applied to a further revised methodology recommended for future case study data collection. Additionally, observed trends were noted i n the research analysis portion of this document and recommendations for consumption and implementation by federal entities and construction firms w ere made as to best business practices that yield the most productivity improvements. In this way, th e research will act on the lessons learned, fulfilling the OODA Loop. Probable further work will include establishing a user -friendly way for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other owners to integrate this analysis method into their construction projec t management portfolio.

PAGE 113

113 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Phase I: Observe Introduction Building Information Modeling is not yet widespread in the US Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) industry. Specifically, the 2006 iteration of the annual AIA Firm Survey indicated that only 16% of the firms surveyed had acquired BIM software and that only 10% of the firms were using the software for billable work. As such, there wa s little empirical data regarding BIM application use or be nefits in 2006. Therefore, in addition to the typical review of literature in the field, three iterations of a qualitative survey was administered to garner initial data about practitioners perceptions about the effects of BIM on construction key performance indicators (KPIs) from 2007 to 2008. This survey data was used to determine current BIM practices and perceptions to formulate additional research hypotheses for use in Phase II. The web -based survey garner ed industry stakeholders impressions of BIMs effect on construction through specific construction metrics based on six (6) primary, quantitative construction KPIs : Quality Control, On time Completion, Cost, Safety, $/Unit, Units/Man -h our a s determined in a 2003 study by Cox et al. (2003) In this way, qualitative industry perceptions were quantified. The survey was hosted on http://www.zoomerang.com through an account login funded by the National Institute of Building Sciences, Facility I nformation Council (NIBS FIC). In concert with the National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Committee testing team, a subset of the NIBS -FIC, this data was shared for their own empirical research. Survey #1 After receiving University of Florida Institutional Review Board (UFIRB) authority, the first iteration of the survey was available from March 5, 2007 until April 5, 2007 and was

PAGE 114

114 advertised to the NIBS FIC NBIMS Committee as discussed in Chapter 3. To summarize, t his sample group was chosen because they are kn owledgeable about BIM and have a high likelihood for providing actionable data. In order to garner maximum participation from existing and new members, the survey was advertised in two different ways: direct email through a distribution list and a website advertisement on the NIBS FIC/BIM website where people join the committee. First, an email was sent to the FIC listserv distribution list. This listserv had 104 members from across the AECO industry at the time of the surveys launch. Halfway through the month long survey availability, a reminder email was sent to the listserv asking for more people to complete the survey or for those who had started the survey to complete the survey. The second method of garnering qualified respondents was to adverti se the survey on the NIBS FIC website at that time (Note: the website has been changed to http://www. buildingsmartalliance facilityinformationcouncil.org/nbims bim ), http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org, under their NEWS portion. Since most people only happen upon this website when signing up to join the NIBS -FIC NBIMS committee, and this website is only advertis ed in the AECO community, the possibility of tainting the data was considered negligible. Part I: Basic Demographic Information Figures 4 1 through 4 3 show the data gathered through the Zoomerang online survey or data analysis derived from the data in the survey. Regarding gender, 86% (43/50) of the respondents were male and 14% (7/50) female. The age data of the respondents shows that the mode response was also the med ian age group, the 45 54 year olds with an overall normal distribution of respondents. There was only one respondent under 25 years old.

PAGE 115

115 As far as education level, 86% (43/50) of the respondents had college degrees, with 56% (28/50) of them holding gra duate or professional degrees. There was no definite trend indicated on the organizational revenue question, although the most frequent response was $1$9.9 Million with 24% (12/50) of the respondents choosing this answer. Figure 4 1. Survey #1 scr een capture of the results to survey questions 1 3

PAGE 116

116 Figure 4 2. Survey #1 Screen capture of the results to question 4 The r espondents geographic locations were varied with 47/50 respondents living in the U.S. and three from outside the U.S. (Note: despite being the U.S. NBIMS committee, several members live and work outside the U.S., but are either American citizens or are liaisons for wider interests such as the North American BIM buildingSmart Initiative (sic), etc. so it is possible for resp ondents on the U.S. NBIMS listserv to live outside the U.S.) The most frequent response by state was from Maryland, with 18% or nine of the 50 respondents living there. Figure 4 3. Survey #1 Screen capture of the results to question 6 Top level de scription of organizational role The organizational role data results showed that the two most frequent responses were from those with a Design Role with 44% (22/50) of the respondents and from those with a

PAGE 117

117 Management role, which accounted for 30% (15/5 0) of the respondents. Of the top most frequent response, Design Role, 73% (16/22) of the respondents were architects and 27% (6/22) of the respondents were engineers. For the second most frequent response, Management, 47% (7/15) were Vice Presidents in their organization and 40% (6/15) of the respondents were the Chief Executives of their organization. Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs Respondents were asked to rate their perception of BIMs impact on six KPIs. In order to clearly compare each of the KPIs to one another, the frequency of positive responses [responses similar to Greatly Improves or Improves] were combined into the form of a percentage to simplify comparison between all six KPIs ( see Figure 4 4) Figure 4 4. Survey #1 screen capt ure of the various results to first three KPIs: Units per man hour, Dollars/Unit, and Safety This was done rather than taking the median or average because the responses were discrete variables that depended on frequency rather than comparing the KPIs a cross a continuous spectrum. The following list is organized in order of the highest rated to the lowest

PAGE 118

118 rated of the six KPIs: Quality Control/Rework (90%), On time Completion (90%), Cost Overall (84%), Units/Man hour (76%), Dollars/Unit (70%), and Safe ty (46%). This was calculated by evaluating responses that exceeded the neutral Likert value of 3 and comparing that to the total number of responses. For example, 34/50 respondents opined that BIM Improved the Quality Control/Rework KPI, as well as 11/ 50 respondents opined that BIM, Nearly Eliminates Rework for a total rating of 90% (45/50). Full data on the responses can be seen in Figures 4 4 and 45 Figure 4 5. Survey #1 screen capture of results to last three KPIs: Cost, OnTime Completion and Quality Control/Rework Cost was similarly broken down and the following list organized in the order of highest to lowest rated favorable opinion (i.e. assigned a value greater than 3 on the Likert scale) by the

PAGE 119

119 respondents: Overall (84%), Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (78%), Structural (76%), General Conditions (70%), and Finishes (58%). It is important to note that 46% or 23/50 respondents also felt that BIM has No Effect on safety or lost manhours in construction projects, making it the KPI that in their perception is the least impacted by BIM. Part III: Ranking KPIs Respondents were asked to rank the co nstruction KPIs according to their perceptions of how well BIM improved the given KPIs on a scale of 1 10, with 10 showing the most improvement, 5 showing no effect, and 1 showing that BIM inhibits the given KPIs. Organizing the construction KPIs accordin g to merely adding positive response frequency percentages (anything over a score of 5), the KPIs score the following in order from most to least favorable: Quality (94%), On time Completion (88%), Units/Man -hour (86%), Dollars/Unit (80%), Cost (80%), and Safety (54%). When weighting the answers for the degree of favorability according to the weighted average of the ranking scores provided by respondents, the KPIs scored in a slightly different order: Quality, On time Completion, Units/Man -hour, Cost, D ollars/Unit, and Safety. This information is graphically illustrated in Figures 4 5 and 4 6. Figure 44 and 45 show the percentages of favorable responses and their frequency. Figure 4 6. Survey #1 screen capture of Ranking KPI responses

PAGE 120

120 Part IV: Comments A few of the most representative comments made by the respondents are listed here or all comments are included in Figure 4 7 : Figure 4 7. Survey #1 screen capture of Free Responses Respon dent # 3: A BIM will likely affect KPI s rather than the other way around. A good, comprehensive, structured source of ac c urate data that all the stakeholders can access will reduce stove pipes, redundant data and inaccurate information. It will make it easier to keep the data current and to ve rify it. Respon dent #7: The questions that are being asked are of the type that an A/E would ask. You may want to look at asking that questions that a builder, vendor, or trade contractor would ask. Respon dent #8: The way you ask your questions, it seems as if you assume that BIM should save time and money. In reality, I believe that the BIM makes your planning, scheduling, estimating etc more accurate. I have quite often seen that BIM corrects errors, misconceptions and the net effect may be additive (but save the contractor the time, money and the embar rassment of a mistake). If there was inadequate time or more planned for a given scope, than it may it may be just as likely to add time or money as save (sic) Respon dent #13: More KPIs: Reduction in C laims, Improved public outreach/agency coordination, More sustainable structures

PAGE 121

121 Respon dent #16: BIM will minimize change orders, and will also reduce the initial project cost. Contractors will sharpen their pencils and will provide pricing per known fact ors, the number of unknowns and field coordination effort s are reduced. Respon dent #17: While BIM [is] a goal to strive for and is relevant to certain projects the fractured nature of the A/E/C (sic) industry means that it will be a long time before BIM has a significant overall effect on the industry Summary Figure 4 8. Survey #1 screen capture of Summary question, Which of these three definitions of BIM is closest to your own? The summary question in this survey asked respondents which definit ion of BIM most closely matched their own. No respondents chose the answers Dont Know or BIM is 3 D CAD. Therefore, none of the responses were eliminated from the data pool. As shown in Figure 4 8, the definition of BIM drafted by the NIBS -FIC NBIM S Committee received the most responses, BIM is an open standards based information repository for facilities lifecycles, with 70% or 35/50 respondents making this selection. The other response was, BIM is a tool for visualizing and coordinating AEC w ork and avoiding errors and omissions, received 30% or 15/50 responses. While this response is not necessarily incorrect, it does not align with the NBIMS view of the definition, which means that 30% of the respondents from the NBIMS committee have a personal definition of BIM that is different than the committees formal definition. Thus, there is still some work to be done by the NBIMS Committee to educate and inform the AECO community, even within its own organization. However, because of peoples

PAGE 122

122 membership on the committee, their proven expertise, and the fact that only generally acceptable definitions of BIM were selected, all the data was assumed valid and no respondents individual surveys were thrown out. Survey #2 Survey #2 was based on surve y #1, but had some minor edits to the way questions were sequenced or asked after implementing advice from respondents who took Survey #1. The survey was available from April 30 to October 30, 2007, or exactly six months. For more information about the f ormulation or advertisement of the survey, see the methodology in Chapter 2. However, it is important to note that the survey was open to the general population at large and anyone could complete a copy of the survey and experienced 95 completed surveys, out of an unknown sample size pool. Part I: Basic Demographic Information F igures 4 9 through 4 11 show the data gathered through the Zoomerang online survey, o r da ta analysis derived from the data in the survey. Regarding gender, 88% of the respondents were male and 12 % were female. Differing from the NBIMS Survey, this survey had more respondents in the 2534 and 35 44 age groups w hich is understandable, conside ring it was open to all public practitioners. As far as educational level is concerned, 87% of the respondents had bachelors degrees or higher, nearly the same as Survey #1. The age data of the respondents shows that the mode response was the 3544 ye ar olds

PAGE 123

123 Figure 4 9. Survey #2 screen capture of the results to survey questions 1 3 Fig ure 4 10. Survey #2 Screen capture of the results to Q uestion 4 There was no clear trend indicated on the organizational revenue question, although the most frequent response (with a monetary value) was $1 $9.9 Million with 16% (14/90) of the respondents choosing this answer. The most frequent answer overall was Dont know.

PAGE 124

124 Respondents geographic locations were varied with 87/93 respondents living in the U.S. and six from outside the U.S. The most frequent response by state was from Washington, with 11% or ten of the 93 respondents living there, most likely due to advertising the survey while conducting embedded research in Seattle. The organizational role data results showed that there were three primary responses from the eight choices. The most frequent response was from those with Academic Roles with 31% (29/95) of the respondents. Next most frequent were those with Design Roles with 24% (23/95) and Management with 19% (18/95) of the respondents. Of the top most frequent response, Aca demics, 79% of those respondents were Assistant Professors or higher. Of those who responded Design Role, 64% (14/22) of the respondents were architects and 36% (8/22) of the respondents were engineers. For the third highest frequent response, Manageme nt, responses were evenly divided between Chief E xecutive, Vice President, and Partner. Figure 4 11. Survey #2 Screen capture of the results to question 6 Top level description of organizational role

PAGE 125

125 Part II: BIM Effects on KPIs Respondents we re asked to rate their perception of BIMs impact on six KPIs. In order to clearly compare each of the KPIs to one another, the frequency of positive responses [responses similar to Greatly Improves or Improves] were combined into the form of a percen tage to simplify comparison between all six KPIs. This was done rather than taking the median or average because the responses were discrete variables that depended on frequency rather than comparing the KPIs across a continuous spectrum. The following l ist is organized in order of the highest rated to the lowest rated of the six KPIs: Quality Control/Rework (85%), Cost Overall (83%), On time Completion (76%), Units/Man hour (67%), Dollars/Unit (67%), and Safety (37%). It is important to note that becau se Units/Man -hour and Dollars/Unit had the same frequency of favorable answers Figure 4 12 Survey # 2 screen capture of the various r esults to first three KPIs: Units per man hour, Dollars/Unit, and Safety

PAGE 126

126 This was calculated by evaluating responses that exceeded the neutral Likert value of 3 and comparing that to the total number of responses. For example, 50/95 respondents opined that BIM Improves Units per Man hour, as well as 13/95 respondents opined that BIM, Maximizes Units per man -hour, for a total rating of 67% (63/95). Figure 4 13. Survey #2 screen capture of results to last three KPIs: Cost, On Time Completion and Quality Control/Rework Cost was similarly broken down and the following list organized in the order of highest to lowest rated favorable opinion (i.e. assigned a value greater than 3 on the Likert scale) by the respondents: Overall (83%), Mechani cal, Electrical, and Plumbing (83%), Structural (76%), General Conditions (54%), and Finishes (52%.)

PAGE 127

127 It is important to note that 53% or 50/95 respondents also felt that BIM has No Effect on safety or lost manhours in construction projects, making it the KPI that in their perception is the least impacted by BIM, similar to the results in Survey #1. Part III: Ranking KPIs Respondents were asked to rank the construction KPIs according to their perceptions of how well BIM improved the given KPIs on a s cale of 1 10, with 10 showing the most improvement, 5 showing no effect, and 1 showing that BIM inhibits the given KPIs. Organizing the construction KPIs according to merely adding positive response frequency percentages (anything over a score of 5), the KPIs score the following in order from most to least favorable: Quality (83%), Cost (83%), On-time Completion (79%), Dollars/Unit (74%), Units/Man-hour (69%), and Safety (46%) Figure 4 14. Survey #2 screen capture of Ranking KPI responses In orde r to take into account degree of favorability, rather than simply positive frequency, responses were multiplied by their relative weight (6 10) and calculated. After accomplishing this operation, this resulted in: Quality (4.98), Cost (4.98), Ontime Com pletion (4.74), $/Unit

PAGE 128

128 (4.44), Units/Man-hour (4.14) and Safety (2.88) for the same order as frequency of positive responses. Part IV: Free Answer A few of the most representative comments made by the respondents are listed below: Not sure the survey is applicable to the entire scope of "BIM" seems to be construction centric, In that context it is good as far as it goes ; Your definitions of BIM are very shallow and limited to techno logy. BIM is a process that is implemented within a building projects using technologies that facilitate the collaboration, open standards and communications that allow Building Information to be contributed by the right experts at the right time thus crea ting a database that can be viewed in reports, graphics, 2D or 3 D and other means to communicate the means by which it can be constructed. The BIM data must be useful during the entire life cycle of the building. Look at definitions of BIM by CURT, The AIA paper on the Integrated Practice and FIATECH. Tool for Contractors are just part of BIM. Tools for visualizing and coordinating AEC is just part of BIM, BIM is NOT 3 D CAD as some vendors would have us believe. BIM may be fererally [sic] supported for specific applications and they are going to hold the industry accountable for using the BIM process and implementing useful tools to meet the goals of the owners. The Owners organization (CURT) rules the roost. They have the money and want the buildings built so we need to listen to them. Like most trends moving through the construction industry, contractors perceive the need to adopt BIM as a distinguishing capability that separates their company from the rest of the pack. There is also an energized atmo sphere that motivates us to explore this new technology. This is partly driven by our own sense of adventure but also driven by software and hardware developers who promise to solve all of our problems with the new tools. I am very interested in learning t he results of your survey, although I think it's a rapidly moving target that would yield different results in a year from now. An interestsing [sic] format. You have selected what I perceive are key variables and it will be interesting to see you final re sults. Experienced sever learning curve on initial project. Bentley software was found to be not up to the task in many respects. No gain on that project, in fact, probably a more expensive approach with multiple problems flowing from the approach itself, but we do expect these metrics to improve over time. Enjoyed the ability to perceive conflicts between disciplines in the design before discovered during fieldwork. Prime and subs were not prepared to make efficient use of the offered BIM information. Cost estimates easier to update after design changes. Expect this is the wave of the future and holds much promise we did not achieve in our initial attempt. BIM is a great tool for new construction because it builds from the ground up. As a tool for rehab wor k, unless the project is on a fairly large scale, more effort goes into producing the

PAGE 129

129 BIM than can be done by doing a design in 2 D and providing contractors with existing reference drawings. The production of BIMs for an entire installation is a costly pr oposition when done at one time, and even greater when done for several installations at the same time. No one can really afford to BIM all they own to the BIM level of a new facility. BIM as needed should be the process until the evolution of BIM is fully developed to where a building has been mostly BIM'd [sic] because of work to it. Using BIM to produce 2 -D plan sets has no advantage over using any CAD application to do the same. Unless construction contractors have a means to use BIM themselves, BIM wil l be slow growing. As for their use in asset management, until facilities managers understand their usefulness and are able to ue [sic] them with other tools, providing BIM files to them at the completion of construction is a waste. Our use of BIMs have no t shown any change in construction cost or safety, but did increase the effort and cost to do BIM because of a learning curve. Additionally, the majority of our BIMs were produced by contract, which required review of all existing drawings and on -site veri fication visits to produce as -built facilities. This was very expensive work, and they are used only to produce 2D plan sets and primarily as a space management tool. Everyones concept of BIM is based on their perspective. All BIM are not created equal a nd will continue to be inconsistent until there is an effective national standard that addresses all phases of a facility, including concept, design, construction, and O&M. Summary The final question in this survey asked respondents which definitio n of BIM most closely matched their own. No respondents chose the answers Dont Know or BIM is a general contractor's virtual approach to planning site logistics. Therefore, none of the responses were eliminated from the data pool. However it is important to note that 55% of the respondents answered that BIM is a tool for visualizing and coordinating AEC work and avoiding errors and omissions, when the NBIMS definition, BIM is an open standards based information repository for faciliti es lifecycles, garnered only 20% of the respondents answers In fact, even more people (21%) chose to specify their own definition of BIM, showing that BIM is still defining itself within the context of the AECO industry. Free response definitions m ostly answered that BIM represented all of the above answers or focused on the process, rather than the product. Figure 4 15 shows a complete list of these 20 responses and they cover a variety of

PAGE 130

130 feelings regarding respondents personal definit ions of Building Information Modeling that are either similar different, or compi l ations of the choices that were presented in the survey: Figure 4 15. Survey #2 BIM Definition Free Response Answers Figure 4 16. Survey #2 screen capture of S ummary question

PAGE 131

131 In all, the primary differences between the Survey #1 and Survey #2 can be summarized in the following list: Slightly younger respondent pool ; Many more academics in the respondent pool ; Slightly less favorable overall towards BIM in s urvey #2; Opined that c ost is benefitted more by BIM in s urvey #2; Greater disagreement on the definition of BIM in s urvey #2. Survey #3 Survey iteration #3 (Appendix B 1) was issued on May 11, 2008 as conference attendees checked into the BIM4Builde rs event in Gainesville, Florida. Although the survey was very similar to the first two iterations, it was offered in hard copy format and consequently edited to one page for time and logistics constraints of the conference. The following information discusses the results of Survey #3 and concludes with a summary and comparison of the different trends noted from Surveys #1, 2, and 3. Part I: Basic Demographic Information Part I asked similar questions of respondents regarding gender, age, education, annual revenue, and organizational role. This information was later used to cross tabulate the respondents demographics with their responses. However, in order to garner the most information to form reliable trend data, the results of this final survey were analyzed as a subset of the compilation of all three surveys. Therefore, the following results will take into account data from all three surveys and will look for emergi ng trends from all of the data in its entirety. After including completed surveys from all three iterations, there was a very favorable N value of 202 completed surveys.

PAGE 132

132 The results of the demographics of all 202 completed surveys showed that the most likely respondent was male, over 55 years old, held a graduate degree, and worked for a company with annual revenue under $100 Million (Figure 4 17). The various organizational roles of the respondents w ere evenly distributed across management, design, academic, and other fields. Figure 4 17. Compilation of Demographic and BIM Definition Data from Survey #1, 2, and 3. (Note: Most frequent responses are highlighted/yellow.) Part II: Ranking Key Performance Indicators Similarly, all thee sur vey iterations data was compiled regarding KPI ranking. There was a clear trend here with respondents answering in the positive (BIM improves the KPI) to negative (BIM inhibits the KPI) in identical order, which speaks to the validity of the data. As se en in Figure 4 18, the order that respondents ranked the KPIs from most to least favorable were: Quality, with 87.7% saying BIM improves this KPI ;

PAGE 133

133 Cost, with 83.7% saying BIM improves this KPI ; Schedule, with 82.8% saying BIM improves this KPI ; Productivit y, with 74.9% saying BIM improves this KPI ; Safety, with only 53.7% saying BIM improves this KPI Figure 4 18. Compilation of KPI Ranking Data from Survey #1, 2, and 3. (Note: Negative or inhibiting factors are indicated in gray and positive or i mproving values are indicated in yellow with the rank (16)below each in corresponding colors for inhibiting or improving)

PAGE 134

134 Part III: BIM Definition In Part III, respondents were asked to choose from a list of BIM definitions and pick the definition t hat was closest to their own. Of most interest was whether a respondents organizational role affected their response and if there was a trend present where one organizational role chose a single definition by a large margin compared to another. Looking at Figure 4 17 in a different way and representing it as shown in Figure 4 19 it is clear that the answers are fairly well distributed, but that the most common definition answer for all four categories (management, design, academic, and other) of career fields most frequent choice was related to BIM as a tool for visualizing and coordinating A/E/C work and avoiding errors and omissions. This differs from the NBIMS definition of BIM as an open standard -based information repository for facil ities lifecycles, which was the second most frequently chosen definition overall. However, with the high rate of selection of Other or write -in definitions for BIM, it is clear that the industry has not reached a consensus definition for BIM. Figure 4 19. Compilation of BIM Definition Data from Survey #1, 2, and 3. (Note: Focus on whether organizational role affected definition selection. Most frequent responses are highlighted/yellow.)

PAGE 135

135 Phase II: Orient In Phase II, the information gleaned from the survey was used to orient research towards focusing on determining tangible impacts on real world construction projects in multiple organizations including: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts in Seattle, and Louisvill e, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard, NESU Charleston, SC. These organizations were targeted because of their advanced implementation of BIM in standardized ways in the federal government. Research at each location involved reviewing qualitative and quanti tative data regarding the impact BIM had on organizations, technology, and construction in relation to the six primary KPIs referenced throughout this document. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division (CENWD), Seattle District (NWS) Introducti on On -site research was conducted at NWS from July 9 20, 2007. The primary sponsors for the research from within the Seattle District were Mr. Van Woods, CAD/BIM Manager, and Mr. John Herem, Chief, Contract Administration Section in the Construction Division and RMS Steeri ng Committee Representative, CENWD/NWS. The BIM project targeted for analysis was titled in accordance with standard MILCON programming convention and entitled W912DW 06C 0007 NA FY06 Jackson Ave Whole Brks Renewal PH I, an Enl isted Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UPH) Barracks project built on Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Washington. There were four unique building footprints and seven instances of them. Data collection centered on learning about qualitative and quantitative information about this project and all similar and recent UPH projects. The qualitative information came mainly from interviews with District leadership and the Seattle project team. The quantitative data came entirely from the USACE contract management data base, the Resident Management System (RMS) used by the District. As a side note, all military facilities are classified according to pre -defined facility use

PAGE 136

136 codes called category codes. This type of UPH or barracks facilitys category code is 72111. Therefore, RMS queries were isolated to recent construction projects available from FY02 06 with construction predominantly consisting of category code 72111 usable SF The rest of this section will elaborate on the qualitative ( interview) data as well as the quantitative (database) metric data. Qualitative data USACE mainly executes 75% of its MILCON work through contracted out A -E services in traditional design -bid -build or design -build project delivery vehicles. Therefore, t he remainder, or 25% of their work is retained in -house in order to maintain expertise and design skills. These projects are then bid and constructed after in-house design is complete. The project that the Seattle District accomplished via a BIM approach was conducted well before the BIM Road Map was published. The reason for this is that the current Seattle Districts CAD/BIM Manager was previously an embedded researcher in the District on loan from CERL. BIM Manager, Mr. Van Woods, persuaded leadershi p to agree to test a BIM approach on three in -house design projects. It was his hope that after three projects, the learning curve and process change would take hold and then designers and engineers would actually prefer to use BIM, rather than traditiona l means and methods. The first project designed in house via a BIM approach was the project W912DW 06-C 0007 NA FY06 Jackson Ave Whole Brks Renewal PH I, which was designed in the fall of 2005 for FY 06 construction at Fort Lewis. This is important chro nologically because it also occurred simultaneously with the Corps response to Hurricane Katrina, which took several members of the project team for this project to New Orleans or other command -directed locations to help with the aftermath of the devastati ng hurricane. Additionally, as a side note, although the project was supposed to be the first attempt at the planned three project test bed, no other MILCON projects

PAGE 137

137 have been accomplished via a BIM approach to date, due to the current freeze on designs w ith the pending implementation of the Centers of Standardization (COS) plan (See Appendix A 1 for an internal USACE memorandum regarding the COS program ). However, progress has been made on trying BIM on civil works projects that include industrial construction like locks and dams. Lastly, it is also important to note that when the team decided to initiate a BIM approach on this project, several other large scale initiatives were also imposed/attempted at the same time. These included: A cost savings initiative that consisted of switching to Type V, timber construction from steel. A sustainable initiative that consisted of attempting to achieve LEED Silver certification. A units of measure imitative towards attempte d metrification o f federal government projects. It is of great importance to note that while the first two initiatives above were adopted by all following barrack s projects with respect to material type and all projects with respect to sustainability, no other project at the Seattle District has been designed or managed with SI units since this one. Because of these unique facets above, it would appear that there would be so many challenges on this job that it should demonstrate s ubstantial di fferences from traditional projects both qualitatively and quantitatively (i.e. cost and time overruns) However, while there were certainly many items discussed in the interviews that classify this project as challenging, the projects quantitative da ta show that it was typical of nearly all other recent barracks projects accomplished When talking to the designers and BIM support team who were exposed to the pilot project, W912DW 06 C 0007 NA FY06 Jackson Ave Whole Brks Renewal PH I, there was one recurring theme. That theme was that BIM provides a lot of promise, but that the cultural and training hurdles necessary for overcoming transition to the new process were more

PAGE 138

138 difficult than predicted. Like many other organizations, the Corps is in the middle of re engineering their information management approach and has rolled out multiple IT applications in various stages of maturity (See Figure 420). Figure 4 20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Information Technology Applications across the Faci lity Lifecycle The rest of th is section focus es on a background discussion concerning USACE organizational and technological transformation. Organizationally, the USACE has been involved in three major programs involving organizat ional change: Centers of Standardization (COS) causing movement from 25% inhouse design to nearly 100% RFP to outside A E firms ; A 76 outsourcing study for Information Management IMO (i.e. IT) services staff; Project Management Business Process (PMBP) ac cording to ICC tenets of successful construction management First, the USACE moved to a concept of operations called the Centers of Standardization in FY06. More information about this can be found in Chapter 3. Also, the USACE recently

PAGE 139

139 outsourced near ly all IT staff in an A 76 study that awarded a services contract to Lockheed to address their IT or Information Management Office (IMO) needs. As seen in Figure 4 20, the USACE has employed multiple software platforms across the facility lifecycle and i n turn automated many of the project management data routinely created, collected, and leveraged in the facility lifecycle. Technologically, the following serves as a description of each IT application and their intended use: CEEIS : The Corps of Engineer s Enterprise Infrastructure Services program provides the management and services for the Corps network. The CEEIS web page listing their products and services is at https://www.ceeis.usace.army.mil/. This is the portal or clearing house for all the tool s below. When users have rights to use the software platforms below, they have access to the various applications through this one stop shop. CEFMS: The Corps of Engineers Financial Management System is the overarching system that follows the project f rom inception on because it deals with financial information. Separately, P2 is an automated information system (AIS) to effectively manage all programs and projects in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Its functions include the capability to scope, devel op and track critical path networks, assign resource estimates, compare estimated costs to actual costs, perform earned value analysis, and maintain a historical record of a project. P2, as a project and programs management tool, provides structure and support to the Corps corporate, regional, and district level and project management business processes. Additionally, P2 provides for a corporate database utilized for decision support capability, utilizing online analytical processing (OLAP) tools to display Corps management information in various views and to generate customized reports. P2 is a commercial off the shelf (COTS) solution. The application is a 3 tier architecture interface accessible through a web browser on the client. It is

PAGE 140

140 the sole Project Management Automated Information System (PM -AIS) or, as it is more commonly known, P2 for the Corps. P2 is a major technological enhancement of the legacy system, PROMIS, already fielded. PROMIS was a significant leap forward in project management capability for the Corps. It integrated the business fu nctions of multiple, redundant AIS into a single technology solution. It has proven effective in meeting its limited objectives. However, subsequent to the fielding of PROMIS, advances in technology have rendered the system incapable of fulfilling todays requirement of programs and project management, resource management, virtual project team and regional business center concept. RMS: The Resident Management System is the primary tool the Corps uses to manage the data for their ongoing construction proj ects. COBIE: Construction Operations Building Information Exchange is the newly developed tool from the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) at the Engineer Research and Design Center (ERDC) to automate the turnover process. The goals are two -fold: Minimize paper transmission and provide a launching point for attributing future intelligent BIMs with this important information. FEM : Facilities and Equipment Maintenance is a Department of Defense migratory Computerized Maintenance Manageme nt System (CMMS). The Joint Logistics Systems Center (JLSC) developed the system to meet the needs of DoD maintenance organizations. This system was designated as a DoD migratory system in 1995. FEM is the Corps customization of MAXIMO Enterprise Base Systems (MRO Software, Inc.), which is a Commercial OffThe Shelf -System (COTS) package. The customization is provided to each service (Army, Navy, and Air Force) to fulfill unique mission requirements. FEM integrates several plant maintenance functions into a cost effective asset management program. It supports and consolidates

PAGE 141

141 functions, such as capital depreciation, equipment preventative and corrective maintenance, equipment installation, facility modification, and equipment calibration into a single mana gement environment. The functionality also envisions an integrated application that optimizes asset use through management of corrective and preventive equipment maintenance, asset calibration, inventory and property, and maintenance budget. It provides ca pability to track life cycle costs of all assets, thus providing real -time accountability. In terms of expected performance outcome, deployment of FEM will standardize the maintenance business process Corps -wide. In addition, implementing FEM should reduce spare parts consumption, material purchases, maintenance labor, contract costs, calibration labor, and capital equipment acquisition. It will replace local unique applications at several field activities, as well as automate facility and equipment mainten ance management at an estimated 80% of Corps facilities Figure 4 21. Seattl e BIM PIT Approach (Source: Woods 2007)

PAGE 142

142 Figure 4 22. NWSs TriForma File Organization [Adapted from Woods 2007] Seattle transitioned to an approach they call the BIM Process Initialization Team (PIT) where all the members of the design team recei ved training one week that incorporated the project requiring design. Members were sequestered in one room and worked on real engineering and architectural requirements for the project throughout the training week. In the second week, members were coach ed by the trainer and BIM Manager to complete the design. Along with Louisvilles approach, this became model for all subsequent COSs. The Seattle BIM team consisted of: BIM Manager, Va n Woods Architects Bruce Hale and Yolanda Melchert ; Structural Engineers, Wayne Kutch and William Daniels Mechanical Engineer, Anne Marie Moellenbrendt Project Lead Technician Jim Davis and Systems Engineer from the Far East District in Korea, O Song Kwon, who helped Mr. Woods set up the work space environment. F igure 4 22 shows the Seattle BIM PIT work process according to tasks on the right side and file organization along the left side

PAGE 143

143 Interview data analysis Now that most of the softw are approaches have been discussed, specific information can be discussed that came from interviews while conducting embedded research within the Seattle District from July 9 20 2007. Throughout the period of embedded research, formal or informal in terviews were held with the following individuals: COL Michael McCormick, District Engineer ; MAJ Karl Jansen, Deputy Chief, Construction Branch ; Mr. Van Woods, BIM Initiator, CADD/BIM Manager; Mr. John Herem, Chief, Contracting Branch ; Mr. Bruce Hale, R.A. Chief, Design Branch ; Mr. Thomas Poole, Senior Construction PM ; Mr. Tim Grube, Chief, Safety Branch ; Mr. John Brigance, Project PM ; Mr. James Davis, CADD/BIM Support/Designer ; Miss Adrienne Murphy, Engineering Intern, Contracting Branch ; Ms. Brenda Mori arty, Chief, Information Operations Management ; Ms. Carla Lafferty, Safety ; Mr. Stephen Pierce, Chief Cost Estimating ; Mr. Melquiades Bonicillo, Cost Estimator ; Mr. Martin Frisvold, Cost Estimator Seattle interview #1: Bruce Hale Bruce Hale, R.A., the C hief of the Design branch was interviewed on July 19, 2007 while driving back from a Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) luncheon and Fort Lewis construction tour where the BIM project was visited while at the 80% complete stage of

PAGE 144

144 construction. Hale won the Corps -wide Award for Architect of the Year for 2006 in part because of his work with on the BIM job, FY06 Jackson Ave. Barracks. Hale demonstrated leadership, architectural design abilities, and technical savvy in bringing the barracks to fruition with a contemporary feel, in a forested, campus like sett ing (Hale 2007). However, Hale freely admits that the Jackson Ave. Barracks job was not optimal. Primarily, he points to the challenges stated earlier in this chapter including cost, sus tainability, and metrification initiatives; but he also concedes that the technological component was extremely difficult. In turn, he had to demonstrate tremendous leadership acumen to train and aid his designers in a completely new software platform. I n fact, at the 35% design review, some of the elevations used to convey design intent to the customers at Fort Lewis Department of Public Works (DPW) were even hand drawn. Figure 4 23. Jackson Ave. Barracks project A) Rendering (Note: Notice uses of multiple software platforms. Thi s rendering came from SketchUp) B) A s -built photo [Adapted from Woods and Solis 2007] A great deal of the interview focused on shortcomings of the Bentley software. According to Hale, Bentley admitted that the bar racks design stumped TriFormas roof -making tool. Therefore, Jim Davis, a designer and CAD support team member, took three months to model

PAGE 145

145 and re -model every truss and connection individually. Sadly, the pre -fabricated truss manufacturer whose services were used on the project did not use this data and instead they opted to use their own software and production capabilities, increasing the amount of unnecessary data creation. This example provides clear evidence supporting the need for a National BIM S tandard. Other challenges mentioned by Hale were a lack of a project -specific metric library of assemblies for things like doors and windows. Also, the design team was not trained in and did not like the rendering results they were obtaining in TriForma Therefore, the team accomplished a mock up for rendering purposes in Sketchup, which is still the primary photograph, associated with the project for public re lations purposes (See Figure 423). Also, Hale goes on to say that Early on, you had to deci de what type of wall you were going to use. This was due to cutting sections and requiring the correct thickness with drywall, resilient channel, etc. At 35%, we had to determine exactly what the wall types would be (thickness, etc.) This was way too ea rly to know this information (Hale 2007). Also according to Hale, m anaging and defining the extractions was very difficult. Generating the extractions was not difficult, as an automated nightly update procedure was established. The real challenge was to get the database driven drawing generation approach to produce the exact output that was expected from high quality drafting conventions achieved previously through manual drafting. Seattle interview #2: Van Woods BIM Manager, Mr. Van Woods, assert e d that the challenges noted in Mr. Hales interview are all normal growing pains associated with learning a new, complex system. Object definitions and drawing extraction management was specifically chosen by Mr. Woods to be managed by CADD/BIM Support staff rather than designers in order to ease the learning curve on the first project, but as a result the designers did n o t feel like they had enough control. He also

PAGE 146

146 asserts that there is nothing wrong with the quality of the rendering system, but rather that it was a much lower priority above more valuable business process objectives of items like cost estimating, construction sequencing visualization, and interference detection. He feels there were certainly usability improvements that could be ma de to the system, but that most of the frustration was a result of software education related rather than technological shortcoming by TriForma. Issues that both Woods and Hale agree on include the use of the information from the model. Woods had several pet projects in mind that he wanted to test on the BIM job. These primarily included initiatives to leverage the INFORMATION part of the Building Information Model. Items like 4 -D sequencing movies, quantity take -offs, and interference detection, were successful and became more than just pet projects, but reality. However, they were mostly relegated to eye candy for presentations on the project rather than really used by anyone outside the team. For example, both Hale and Woods lament that the estim ators did not use either the quantity take -off (QTO) or estimate from the model. Instead, the estimators warned that they trusted their experience over the BIM software. When their estimates came in much higher than the initial government estimate (IGE ), they came back to the designers to determine the cause. The primary reason was because the estimator had included one kitchen item (e.g. refrigerator, stove, sink, etc.) for every person in the 240-person barracks when in reality, there was only suppos ed to be one kitchen set for every two people. This is a problem that would have never occurred if using the BIM QTO as the basis for an accurate estimate. Other functionality typically associated with a BIM approach includes window and door schedules an d room tags. However, the design team did not use the model to create these, but instead created them by hand in annotation on the 2 D CDs.

PAGE 147

147 Seattle interview #3: Thomas Poole Mr. Thomas Poole, a senior military construction Program Manager has worked for the Corps for the past 19 years. Also, Poole was recently recognized as a Modern Day Technology Leader during 21st Annual Black Engineer of the Year Awards Conference held Feb 15 17 in Baltimore, Maryland (Overton 2007). In his opinion, he is a BIM pr oponent and he feels that it holds a lot of promise, but there is no clear direction on execution. He feels that the BIMs will be successfully completed to the 80% level as part of the COS effort, but that adapting the models in line with all the competin g constraints like installation design guides, topological concerns, and other unknowns will make implementing BIM extremely difficult as envisioned. In order to be successful, Poole feels that USACE needs to determine what the undesigned 20% will be a s soon as possible and begin engineering those items, as well. Overall, he feels that the technology can handle it; it is the process that will be the challenge. When asked where he stood on the spectrum of thinking every construction project is a unique piece of art and the other end of the spectrum where construction is no more than production, Poole said that he falls more towards the latter end of the spectrum and that the Corps needs to move in this direction, as well. He thinks we can get through ex panded functionality in modularity similar to the job he did at Fort Lewis in 2005 where he and John Herem led the $100M program that was designed and constructed in 11 months including renovation of 18 barracks and four dining facilities and installation of 450,000 SF of modular buildings. Poole also thought it was important to mention that the double edged sword of technology was the impact on the human component. BIM is fundamentally changing the whole process. What about the trades, crafts, unions, etc? Consequently, Poole was asked who wins, Casey Jones or technology. Poole said that Casey Jones would always win because of

PAGE 148

148 experience but because Casey Jones relies on shortcuts, he needs technology to validate and verify his work. Seattle interv iew #4: John Herem Mr. John Herem, the USACE Construction Project Manager of the Year for 2005 and current Chief of the Contracting Branch of the Seattle District was also interviewed. Mr. Herems expertise and knowledge were sought because of his expert ise on RMS, but he was also a wealth of information regarding Project Management in the Corps. While interviewing Mr. Woods and Mr. Herem jointly, the recurring theme of the dialogue focused on a top-down method of project delivery. According to Mr. Hal e, the organizational landscape within the USACE can be classified as drastic to tumultuous, depending on who is interviewed. The overarching changes from the service-wide Army transformation have trickled down to the Corps of Engineers and driven a great number of changes as discussed in Chapter Three. In a follow up telephone interview on October 4, 2007 after the on-site interview in July, Mr. John Herem noted that the project was 91% complete, but behind schedule due to the following problems: Poor Construction Manager from the subcontractor who was different than the same CM used on other similar barracks projects at Fort Lewis ; The contractor failed to protect the wood resulting in mold remediation delays ; They (the contractor) poorly coordin ated the trades which delayed installing mechanical equipment and made installing interior finish work more difficult ; They pre -fab ricated the wood panels and they had to rework them when the doors and windows did not fit on site ; They pre -fab ricated the roof trusses which caused extensive mechanical ductwork re -work ; They had other mechanical chaise rework issues ; They did not use high quality carpenters and used residential carpenters, so they had a lot of framing trouble ;

PAGE 149

149 They started under mannin g the job when they started losing money. When talking to Mr. Hale, the primary theme alluded to earlier was that BIM provides a lot of promise, but that the cultural and training hurdles necessary for overcoming transition to the new process were more d ifficult than predicted Due in large part to the lessons learned in Seattle and Louisville regarding training, the USACE and their BIM software partnered to establish a pedagogical approach to learning their BIM software that included 3 5 weeks of train ing, with a 1 week introduction to the software followed by 2 4 weeks of intense training where designers work together to apply newfound BIM knowledge to an Army Center of Standardization (COS) standard facility type. Therefore, all 8 geographically disparate COSs were trained by the end of FY07 with sound training plans that resulted in tangible benefits and real design drawings. A final challenge that Seattle uncovered was the lack of metric assemblies (or sample content) available in 2005. The desi gn team was forced to convert or modify every assembly from imperial units to metric one at a time, eliminating a benefit of BIM that is more prevalent today. Conversely, there are widely available project assembly data that can be used off the shelf in any project to rapidly advance the design phase. Finally after interviewing Mr. John Herem, the Chief of Contract Administration for Seattle District, he said that aesthetically, the BIM design on this project was embraced by the user. But from a contractual standpoint, it was as good as any other design when it came to the quality of the construction documents. Ultimately, he wished that the contractor wouldve had the knowledge and training to work with the virtual model rather than just the c onstruction drawings; but since this was not the case, the project suffered significant construction management issues caused by the contractor that couldve been avoided. In particular, there were structural and mechanical issues and scheduling/phasing difficulties that could have been avoided if the contractor was more active in using the model to visualize, and in turn, manage a

PAGE 150

150 successful project. In the big picture, operating in a BIM environment leverages information to transform the building supply chain through open and interoperable information exchange, while contracts only stipulate legal minimums. In other words, when you do things the way you always did them, you get what you always got. Seattle found that operating in a BIM environment g ave them an edge, but because of lack of buyin, the contractor did not. Capability Maturity Model (CMM) rating As part of the NBIMS, Version 1.0, the NIBS FIC NBIMS Team established a model that evaluates the maturity of Building Information Models and se rves as an awareness tool for turning qualitative analysis of information management into a quantitative number for great objectivity. The W912DW 06C 000 7 NA FY06 Jackson Ave Whole Brks Renewal PH I project was scored by the Seattle District BIM Manager and the research using the Interactive version of the CMM and it received a 38.2 score out of 100, for a Minimum BIM rating (Figure 4 24). Figure 4 24. I CMM score for Seattle BIM Project, Jackson Ave. Whole Brks Renewal The areas where the BIM scored the highest were in the Graphical Information and Spatial Capability categories. This was due to the BIMs successful 4 D simulation as well as

PAGE 151

151 its geo rectified location and inclusion in the Districts GIS in a limited fashion However, the BIM reflected the cross section of what most current BIM projects are: a slightly more complex 3 D version of the current sub-optimal 2 D drafting approach. This included a heavy reliance on preliminary design concept drawings done in 2 D first and then recreated them in 3 D in TriForma Ironically, 2 D CAD extractions from the 3D model were then required for the Construction Documents (CDs), so the end product was once again 2 D. Also, not all components of the building were modeled most notably, portions of the structural plan. Finally, the BIM was not used in large -scale fashion (i.e. other than by designers) by anyone or anywhere other than to create traditional construction documents. This excludes constructability reviews by t he contractor, O&M usage, emergency responder planning, or other typical applications envisioned for BIM models. Therefore, the Seattle District BIM had little more than standard information management practices compared to what would be used on any tradi tional design or construction project. Quantitative d ata Prior to arrival in Seattle and Louisville, computer security (COMPUSEC) tests were accomplished so that access to Corps IT applications could be accessed. This included training and testing in Inf ormation Security (INFOSEC) and a training survey regarding Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the US Army (SAEDA). These tests were important because it is notable that the statistical data collected, analyzed and discussed here is not readily ava ilable on the web, and while not classified, the data is sensitive in consideration of future MILCON contracting considerations. Quantitative data was gleaned from the Corps RMS, the tool described at length earlier in this chapter. Specifically, the pos sibility of aligning the quantitative or statistical data comparison portion of the research with the Corps internal metrics initiative, the Consolidated

PAGE 152

152 Command Guidance (CCG) program, was considered. These CCG Reports provided a myriad of data regardin g all civil and military construction projects in the NWS District. The first step was to determine what metrics the Corps tracked that were the most similar to the six KPIs surveyed in the Observation Phase of this research. According to the P2 Data D ictionary Update According to internal Corps guidance for employees, the most critical metrics are those reported to higher authority through the USACE CCG metrics and are generally at the MILCON Project (i.e. Department of Defense (DD) Form 1391) leve l and use those milestones associated with: Construction a ward or o bligation; Interim design execution milestones such as RTA, Advertising /RFP and Bid Opening ; Construction execution metrics relating to project level cost growth ; Construction t ime and BOD t ime g rowth Then, RMS was used to generate multiple reports for each project showing the data regarding these metrics. The raw report data and analysis of the results can be seen below. The only project accomplished at the District via a BIM approa ch from design through construction was the W912DW 06 C 0007 NA FY06 Jackson Ave Whole Brks Renewal project. Therefore, reports were generated for this project and all other comparable Barracks Renewal and Construction projects dating from FY02 06. In this way, only similar projects were evaluated and the data pool was more manageable, having been filtered according to facility use code 72111, Enlisted Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (UPH) which Department of the Army Pamphlet 41528 describes as a bui lding or portion thereof that meets or exceeds those minimum standards for assignment as housing for unaccompanied enlisted personnel or dormitory space for cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (2006). According to

PAGE 153

153 Appendix A, Parts I and II for Buildings and Support Facilities, Unit Costs for the Army Facilities Military Construction Program, UPH barracks are usually about 99,500 SF. Because of MILCON Transformation (MT) a 15% reduction in the unit costs from the 2007 DoD Facilities Planning Guidance Costs have been already incorporated into category code 72111 SF facilities for a cost per SF of $166. Therefore, the normalized cost per square foot equals $166x1.15 or $190.90 if the MT 15% reduction is not taken into account. The init ial concept of a detailed KPI by KPI comparison is listed below. Every attempt was made in order to evaluate only construction metrics that could be compared across the board for all six projects from FY02 06. After an exhaustive comparison of every deta iled metric tracked in RMS, the following list represents the initial approach used to compare the pilot BIM project with the other similar projects completed in the Seattle District. Figure 4 25 is included to show the first iteration of statis tical comparison. Quality In the survey, quality was defined as, % of rework compared to overall cost. While this may be a good metric for contractors on construction projects, it was not a metric evaluated by the Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the met rics that were viewed as the closest comparisons were: Punch l ist, q uality a ssurance, # ; Punch l ist, q uality c ontrol, # ; RFIs, # ; Changes, # ; Changes, $ ; Changes, t ime (Days) ; Contingency, $;

PAGE 154

154 Contractor c laims, # ; Contractor c laims, $ ; Contracto r c laims, t ime ( d ays) On -Time completion In the survey, On -time completion was considered construction duration variance from proposed schedule duration. Time g rowth, total c ompleted and s igned, % ; Time g rowth, total f unded ( p ending) % ; Time g rowth, total u nfunded ( p ending), %; Time g rowth, c ontrollable, c ompleted and s igned, % ; Time g rowth, c ontrollable, f unded ( p ending), % ; Time g rowth, c ontrollable, u nfunded ( p ending), %. Units/manhour In the survey, units pe r man -hour was defined as, measure of completed units (typically square footage) put in place per individual man hour of work. % c omplete*total SF/Man -hours to d ate Cost In the survey, c ost was defined as, variance in actual costs to budgeted c osts. Cost g rowth, total, c ompleted and s igned, % ; Cost g rowth, total, Funded ( p ending), %; Cost g rowth, total, Unfunded ( p ending), %; Cost g rowth, c ontrollable, c ompleted and s igned, % ; Cost g rowth, c ontrollable, f unded ( p en ding), % ;

PAGE 155

155 Cost g rowth, c ontrollable, u nfunded ( p ending), %. Cost/SF In the survey, Cost/SF was defined as, the dollar value associated with putting one complete unit in place (e.g. cost per square foot ). Construction c ost for c at egory c ode 72111 o nly/ s quare f eet for that s pecific c at egory c ode as paid according to the CEFMS portion and reported in RMS ; Construction c ost for b arracks ( c ontractor c ost per SF as bid) ; Construction c ost for b arracks (i nitial g overnment e stimate per SF a s advertised) Safety In the survey, safety was defined as, lost man -hours. E xposure h ours (work hours) ; Accidents ; Lost m an -hours ; (Number of l ost t ime a ccidents x 200,000)/ h ours w orked. Figure 4 2 5 Statistical Information Collection sampl e created and accomplished in Seattle

PAGE 156

156 Revised statistical approach After determining that this process was not easily repeatable, nor as trustworthy as using the multi -level -verified CCG reports used by higher headquarters, Chapter 5 discusses the move to wards using the Corps internal CCG program as the primary means of collecting quantitative data to conduct the statistical comparison. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (CELRD), Louisville District (LRL) Introduction Embed ded research was conducted at the Louisville District from 23 27 JUL 07. The primary sponsor for the research from within the District was Mr. J. Wayne Stiles, CAD/BIM Manager. The pilot BIM project was titled in accordance with convention and entitled W912QR 07C 0037 RaleighDurham ARC/OMS/Unh Storage an Army Reserve Center with an Organizational Maintenance Shop and Unheated Storage project built on land leased from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. Data collection cente red on learning about qualitative and quantitative information about this project and all similar and recent ARC projects. The qualitative information came mainly from interviews with District leadership and the Louisville project team. The quantitative data came primarily from the USACE contract management database, the Resident Management System (RMS) used by the District. Just as the barracks job at Fort Lewis had a 72111 category code, this type of facilitys category code is 17140. Because the Dist rict also constructs Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs) with the category code of 17141 which are nearly identical to ARCs, RMS queries were isolated to projects with these category codes 17140 and 17141. The rest of this section will elaborate on the q ualitative (interview) data as well as the quantitative (database) metric data.

PAGE 157

157 Qualitative d ata The Louisville District (LRL) traced their BIM initiative to November 2005 when two ACSIM -AR contracted consultants, Al Frye and Lyle Bonham, visited LRL to represent their client, the Army Reserves The impetus for the visit came from a problem that the Army Reserves (AR) and LRL shared. AR used a product called the Modular Design System (MDS) that was developed in the late 1980s at the recommendation of ACSIM -AR (Larry Cozine, personal communication, July 23, 2007) When i t was no longer supported by Bentley and became obsolete due to incompatibility with software upgrades around 2005, AR and LRL identified BIM as a way to preserve the data embedded in MDS and allow the information to remain useful in a newer software platform T he AR previously developed standard room and room layout configurations for various AR unit types. In this way, MDS was used to take design charrettes to construction document s more quickly. When AR and LRL became dependent on MDS and could not utilize this data in the design phase without MDS, they realized the need to change their processes and their technology. When Frye and Bonham an A/E firm used by AR in the past visi ted LRL, their main objective was to solve the problems surrounding MDS. Because of their knowledge about the industrys move towards BIM, they were convinced that BIM was the right path to pursue from a design standpoint as well as a technological perspe ctive. At the recommendation and invitation of Frye and Bonham the Mason and Hanger Group present ed their work to LRL during this workshop Simultaneously, Mr. Van Woods who was assigned to the Construction Engineeri ng Research Laboratory (CERL) at the time and now at the Seattle District as discussed above was also in attendance to present his work and perspective on BIM Because of the impressive presentations by Lee Ezell of Mason and Hangar Group and Van Woods of CERL adopted the

PAGE 158

158 enthusiasm Frye and Bonham shared for BIM, and LRL was persuaded to pursue BIM; ushering in a fundamental paradigm shift in how they designed their AR facilities. Frye and Bonham knew that the decision to purse BIM was not enough to create or sustain the program. Therefore they left LRL with three actionable requirements that began LRLs BIM journey First, they designated the Raleigh -Durham Army Reserve Center which already had received funding and a flexible timeta ble for delivery to the clients, as the first pilot project. Second, LRL required a BIM mentor. LRL partnered with Lee Ezell and Eric Baker, who served as the mentors to LRL on technical and procedural issues, from the Mason and Hange r Group. Third, Fry e and Bonham set a two year deadline in which the LRL team was to complete the design, solicit proposals, and award their first BIM pilot project. Whereas Seattle started with no data of any kind, t he Army Reserves move to BIM began with importing and updating their knowledge base preserve d in the data bases of MDS, as well as lessons learned and system implementations from the Seattle District. At the same time, they set out to create the team that would successfully create the first BIM -based project fr om LRL In developing t heir team, LRL hand -picked people who were open to change and had good communication skills. After initial attempts by individual design team members to achieve progress on their own proved ineffective in early 2006, LRL trans itioned to an approach they call the BIM Process Initialization Team (PIT) where all the members of the design team received training one week that incorporated the project requiring design. Members were sequestered in one room and worked on real engineer ing and architectural requirements for the project throughout the training week. In the second week, members were coached by the trainer and BIM Manager to complete the design. In the words of Brian Huston, the BIM PIT consisted of 5 10 people whose position descriptions are described below. It was because of this accelerated,

PAGE 159

159 integrated design effort that the Raleigh job was ready for solicitation and 100% designed approximately 8 months before the ACSIM -AR imposed deadline. As an aside, the t eam felt that BIM was the vehicle that drove the organizational change in order to accomplish better integrated design, whereas previous efforts amounted to little more than unrealized goals (Huston, personal communication, July 24, 2007). Ce ntral to the BIM PIT was the BIM manager. In LRLs eyes, the BIM manager wa s the most significant member because that person must possess varying technical and team building skills in order to initiate and sustain the BI M approach. While they need not actually accomplish a large portion of the actual design work, this person needed to have a strong grasp of the districts design process and be able to work with new software with new file management standards but embrace legacy standards such as the Tri -Service CADD Standard for construction documents. The Architect is also vital to the team as the person who accomplishes, and leads the team to accomplish, the design. The BIM Architect was required to learn new software a nd coach others on tips and techniques for success in the new software. This person had to be both a strong technician and be able to prepare drawing sets. The architect also aided the structural designer who used RAM steel and STAAD structural analysis packages to model the facilitys structure in the Bentley TriForma Structural package (McConis 2006) The rest of the team of BIM designers were required to apply their professional expertise to make engineering decisions and evaluate the implications th at their designs had on other disciplines with more detailed analysis. These individuals needed to understand the geometry and connectivity of elements. Still, as with all design, engineering ability was far more

PAGE 160

160 important than the ability to model in 3 D but modeling successfully was still needed for project completion and communication of the design intent ( McConis 2006). LRL also utilized a Project Lead Technician who wa s responsible for all extractions to 2D from system models and drawing set c ompletion. This person was also responsible for all file management within the project directory and work ed with all disciplines to ensure 2D output wa s completed and standardized. This person worked intimately with the BIM manager to coordinate specific project dataset issues (McConis 2006). The LRL BIM team consisted of: Brian Huston, BIM manager, Dan Hawk, Architect; Eric Fry and Jeremy Nichols, Structural Engineers; Brandon Martin, Mechanical Engineer and Brad Allen, Project Lead Technician. Lat er, the necessity of Interior Design arose and Barbara Pfister joined the team. Larry Cozine, Chief of Design was assigned to the position of Team Lead er to facilitate successful design. The Chief of Design, Cozine followed t he Project Management Busine ss Process (PMBP) throughout the effort, providing the necessary processes for project delivery and effective quality management. The PMBP Manual ensures that USACE actions comply with the internationally recognized standard ISO 9001: 2000 E dition Some key aspects of the Project Management Business Process are documented in the list below : (McConis 2006) Quality p olicy and o bjectives ; Objectives and related measures ; Project d elivery p rocess m ap ; Project i nitiation and p lanning ; Project e xec ution ; Project c loseout ;

PAGE 161

161 Project o peration ; Support s ervices ; Continuous i mprovement ; Documents and records The PMBP is the fundamental driver of all USACE business processes. Project execution is a dynamic process of sequential and interrelated proc esses The flowchart in Figure 4 26 show s a visual interpretation of t he Project Delivery Process Map. Figure 4 26. PMBP Manual Project Delivery Process Map for a Typical Project [Adapted from Woods 2007]

PAGE 162

162 As part of the PMBP, organizations need to create goals and object ives that assess not only deliverable productivity, but how that productivity is achieved. The LRL BIM team created the following goals and objectives for their BIM initiative: Goals and o bjectives ; Facilitate the desires and needs of client ; Gain skill set for team members t rain the trainer ; Produce a quality design on schedule and on budget utilizing BIM ; Create and maintain corporate dataset should be building type specific Once the design team was comfortable with their 100% design of the Raleigh Durham ARC, they wanted to carry this knowledge over to establishing the 80% solution for all future ARCs and AFRCs that could be site adapted for sites across the armed forces. In accordance with regulations, the AR historically maintained a nd followed stringent design criteria for facility construction. In addition to design guides, there were standards for apportionment such as c riteria established regarding facility size, room types, room sizes, and supplied furniture just to name a few. However, without guides on how to accomplish the design with a BIM approach, there were challenges for LRL. The biggest challenge for LRL besides the learning curve for BIM CAD software use was determining what output would be generated from the model. The team was faced with many questions. If they were to model the building in a way that was intended to create traditional construction documents, then why follow the new approach? From another perspective, if they did not provide traditional constructi on drawings or plans, how would the contractor know how to interface with the model to build the building successfully? What liability issues existed for this new approach? Like NWS, LRL pursued modeling the

PAGE 163

163 building 100% and was more successful at model ing the structural portion of the facility. In turn, this was inserted in RAM Structural analysis while still creating traditional construction documents. This means that they also leveraged the model to produce automated and parametric schedules such as door, window and finish schedules (McConis 2006). Also, since they applied "accurender" material attributes to the facility, they were able to accomplish renderings inside TriForma rather than relying on SketchUp for their renderings and project v isualization Interview data analysis COL Raymond Midkiff, Commander, District Engineer ; J. Wayne Stiles,P.E., BIM Manager ; Ed Mathison, P.E., CADD Mgr, Engr Div; Larry Cozine, Chief, Design Branch, Engr Div ; Gerard Edelen, Chief, Reserves Sect Engineering Mgmt Br, Engr Div ; Daniel Algeier, Project Mgr, AR Criteria, Reserve Proj Mgmt Br, Plng, Prgrms & Proj Mgmt Div ; Dave Klinstiver, Acting Chief, Construction Div ; Brian Huston, Bentley Systems, Inc. (former LRL BIM Mgr) ; Kirk Daily, Project Mgr, AR Program Reserve Proj Mgmt Br, Plng, Prgrms & Proj Mgmt Div ; Shenita McConis, Junior Project Engineer, Plng, Prgrms & Proj Mgmt Div ; Mark Real, Master Planner/Landscape Architect ; Donna Thompson, Master Planner/Landscape Architect ; C. Fred Grant, P.E., Chief, Res erve Proj Mgmt Br, Plng, Prgrms & Proj Mgmt Div ; Rosemary Gilbertson, Chief, Engineering Division; Denise Klingelsmith, Chief, Computer Svcs Branch, Information Mgmt Div; Jeremy Nichols, P.E., Structural Engineer, Structural Design ;

PAGE 164

164 Jason Adwell, LRL Syste ms Administrator Pat Judd, Database Admin, Information Mgmt Division ; Wes Barber, Acting Chief, Quality Assurance Section, Construction Div ; Bruce Murray, Chief, Engr Div Louisville interview #1: Larry Cozine Interviews were conducted on site from July 2327, 2007 while conducting embedded research at LRL. The first person formally interviewed was Mr. Larry Cozine, Chief of the Design Branch. Mr. Cozine made it clear that while he interfaced with the Reserve Support team (RST), he and his team members overlapped with the RST. Also, Mr. Cozines position on the oversight committee for the COS initiative proved invaluable because of the information he was able to provide in the interview which is included here. Mr. Cozine helped launch the COS program d ue to his experience in centralizing work for the ACSIM -AR in Louisville in 1997. According to Mr. Cozine, since 1997, each ARC was designed in Louisville through MDS and then the construction management was led by the regional USACE District where the co nstruction occurred until FY 2006 when the policy was changed to have all construction managed out of LRL, as well. This meant that projects completed prior to FY06 lost visibility in RMS as they were converted to the District with the geographic authorit y. However, the usual rate of projects was maybe one or two a year, but with the most recent round of BRAC, there have been a great deal of new ARCs, approximately 16 currently accessible in P2 (Cozine, personal communication, July 23, 2007). Later in th e interview, Mr. Cozine summarized LRLs RST responsibilities into three requirements: Project management: typical things like customer interface, etc. ;

PAGE 165

165 Construction oversight: fairly new, real contracting authority and obligating funds, modifications an d contract changes, so they only track money and the geographic regions do the day to day inspections that also do the RMS construction data ; Technical team: Quality Assurance of the customers technical and functional requirements and providing tools, de velop and maintain the standard RFP (update it and make changes as necessary) maintain all the technical criteria and conformance to Dep. Army requirements. While the RST is unique to the Department of the Army, the model they established at LRL is being emulated in the COS program. Strategically, the project funding class of Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR) is executed out of ACSIM -AR in Washington D.C. Because their operations are in a state of flux, it helps to have their facility needs met by LRL. This state of flux includes the fact that while they are run from DC, their Headquarters (HQ) is in Atlanta, but they are currently in the process of moving up under ACSIM which is moving to Fort Knox in Kentucky. Differing from the RST, the CO S initiative stemming from MT is different because it no longer focuses on geographic location as the predominating factor in program management. As a testament to the effect of globalization when drafting the COS plan, the team looked at companies like Walgreens, Kroger, and Wal -Mart, but did not follow any one model, according to Mr. Cozine (Cozine, personal communication, July 23, 2007). Because no single model fit the Armys requirements, the COS program created an entirely new approach that repres ented an amalgam of lessons learned from multiple case studies. In this way, the COS initiative includes installation -specific requirements such as design guidance, LEED design goals, and energy saving directives like EPAC 05. EPAC 05 is more stringent t han LEED because it was a congressional mandate to cut energy consumption by 30% as of 2005. In this way, MT and the subsequent COS program was also an opportunity for HQ USACE to roll up many disparate, new mandates and approaches in one consolidated eff ort.

PAGE 166

166 Specific lessons learned from case studies on companies like WAL -MART included construction strategies that hired general contractors (GCs) to complete work either globally, regionally, or nationally in IDIQ contracts. With this approach, contractors learning curves improve more quickly and their knowledge has continuity by using and reusing construction drawings. According to Mr. Cozine, the repetition is an important aspect (Cozine, personal communication, July 23, 2007). How much repetition? U nder the COS initiative, 42 standard facilities are designed to the 80% level, but that is actually the second step in the three -phase process. The first phase was to embrace and gather industry initiatives which included the case studies on organizatio ns like Walgreens, Kroger, and WAL MART. Also under this phase, the team accomplished the often misunderstood term, adapt -b uild The term is often misunderstood because there is another, similar term known as site adapt. This is where designers tak e a design already designed off the shelf and reuse it. Standard BIMs will be site adapted to their specific geographic locations, but according to Mr. Cozine, adapt build means to incorporate innovations from industry into the USACEs new MT and COS buil ding strategy and methodology. Examples include taking not only industry CM techniques, but innovations like pre -cast, tilt up concrete construction or, Type 5 construction with modular roofs built on the ground and hoisted into place. Note that this lat ter approach was witnessed in the field at Fort Lewis. Also during the adapt -build phase, the USACE COSs will start building BIMs. Because these initial BIMs will not be far enough along in construction to know any lessons learned from a constructability standpoint, the only product will be design build RFPs. However, all FY08 contracts for COS standard facility types will be IDIQ so they can get the same types of buildings built by the same contractors over and over again. These contractors will be able to

PAGE 167

167 bring in different abilities since they will be able to practice the job with incorporated. Starting in FY08 and through FY10, IDIQ contracts will be awarded to the same contractor who designed the building model. Before FY08, HQ USACE awarded C contracts which are onesy, twosy [sic] projects here and there accomplished design build (Cozine, personal communication, July 23, 2007). The adapt build phase will expire in FY08, at which point the Corps will transition to the Prototyping phase where IDIQ firms will design the 41 different standard facility types to the 80% level and build the 100% solution across the United States. While the COS program has merit, its authors still have their reservations. The COS initiatives leaders biggest fear, according to Larry Cozine and echoed by members at the Seattle District, is what will happen when there are multiple IDIQ contractors on site at the same time. For example, rather than one GC building a set of Barracks, an operations facility, and dining facility all at one site, there would not be three GCs building the same three projects with three times the overhead and exponentially more difficult coordination with owners on installations. According to Mr. Cozine, his personally biggest fear is that the one [contractor] that you have left the site contractor will hold up all the other contractors from executing the project and create four contractors pointing fingers at the others (Cozine, personal communication, July 23, 2007). The expectati on is that COSs will develop skills on how to handle challenges like these. Right now, all effort is focused on the perceived payback, reduced construction duration. Also, the hope is that all overhead costs will be billed under the site contract managed by the regional districts that will coordinate lay down areas, cranes, and the like. When asked about the possibility of having the COS IDIQ contractor with the predominating amount of work managing the other COS IDIQ contractors as a modified

PAGE 168

168 Owners rep, Mr Cozine, said that this would NOT happen. Known as the umbrella contractor approach, the USACE would not pursue this approach because it would affect their small business capacity and goals. IN fact, it is the USACE goal that as many as possible of the COS IDIQ projects will awarded to small businesses. Large scale needs and facilities like barracks will be awarded to big contractors. But because there are multiple versions of the 41 facility types, such as small, medium, and large versions of the same types of facility (e.g. chapels) one facility type could have multiple awarded IDIQs. This would allow small firms to build small chapels across the United States. For the IDIQ solicitation starting in FY08, contractor deliverables will include only design concepts and construction management plans. Then, after awarded the IDIQ, it is expected that these small firms with minimal design capabilities will partner with A E firms to create the needed BIM designs and as builts after they win the IDIQ. Th is is also in place because there will be no seed money available for the teams who compete in the solicitations. For the next bid of the IDIQ in two to three years from the original wave of the COS standard facility types, (FY10 11), it is the responsibi lity of the COS to maintain. With the majority of the COS centers residing in the southeast, many of the have -not districts are eager for a redistribution of the COSs, but there is currently no known refresh rate or cycle time for changing the Centers of Standardization. Most COSs are currently in southeast because that is where almost all POMd construction will occur. With the guidance in the master plans promulgated under Army Transformation, installations like Forts Bragg, Bliss, Carson, Riley, H ood, and Campbell are getting the most troops, new missions, and in turn, construction. When asked why all the beneficial information just described above was not common knowledge in the Corps, Mr Cozines answer was that it could be attributed to limite d

PAGE 169

169 resources. Because of the time and effort spent to help stand up the COSs, USACE has not had the availability to go out and explain to non -COS districts how this will work. However, there is a website that serves as a clearinghouse for all the SOPs r egarding COS information that is managed by the Fort Worth District COS, so it is behind the Army firewall and only available to USACE employees, but it does exist (Cozine, personal communication, Jul 23, 2007). When asked about how HQ USACE ran the most r ecent COS Selection process, Mr. Cozine answered that there was a competition. Under the old, existing COS program, districts were little more than informal experts on recurring facility types. When MT dictated that districts take formal responsibility for the 41 standard facility types, HQ USACE knew there needed to be a consistent, defensible process for deciding who would serve as the new COSs. The old COS approach was been spread out to a number of Districts for the last 15 years. Facility types w ere archaic and/or no longer constructed. Standards were outdated or not well maintained. Took the already existing program and concentrated it where the associated workload was the most heavily weighted criterion. For example, Operational Readiness Trai ning Complexes (ORTCs), along with ARCs, went LRL. Fort Worth District (SWF) has the most barracks in the Army with all the installations in Texas, so they received the COS designation for barracks. Louisville interview #2: Brian Huston The next primary stakeholder in the BIM Program interviewed was Mr. Brian Huston. Now working for Bentley as a full time salaried employee, Huston spoke primarily during the interview about his role as the former LRL BIM Manager. However, one of his new tasks as a Bentle y employee was to help conduct training in the spring and summer of 2007 at all eight COSs for two weeks at each COS District. This training cost HQ USACE $86K for 16 weeks of

PAGE 170

170 training in total or a total of $5,375 per week of training (Woods and Huston, compilation of personal conversations, July 2007). According to Stiles and Huston LRL a ttempted to have the CADD/GIS Center fund his travel to do the training while still a member of LRL, but was unsuccessful. The Center determined that neither Mr. Hus ton nor the Center staff could accomplish all this training because of the multiple discipline -specific training requirements. However, the Center did fund Mr. Huston (while he was working at LRL) to support the Center's development of a BIM Manager's Wor kshop (funded directly by HQ USACE) and the development of a BIM Road Map. The COS BIM training curriculum was established and funded months prior to Mr. Huston's decision to leave the USACE but the end result is that all the people who needed to be trained are trained. Hustons past work on the pilot BIM project showed that he excelled at making the technological and cultural efforts necessary to shift LRLs paradigm towards a BIM approach. For example, Huston did not discuss this, but new data was dis covered by reviewing the unclassified, but sensitive, contracting folder for the RaleighDurham project. Under Hustons direction, on December 15, 2006, LRL hosted a pre award planning meeting near the job site in North Carolina that focused on educating t he bidders on the LRLs BIM program, the difference between this design and typical designs, and the way to access the model. Nothing like this was accomplished in Seattle, and it represents an important part the education component, of the unified effor t needed to cement BIM in the AECO culture. Huston should be commended for his proactive and innovative approach. However, with all the effort Huston exerted, it was disappointing that the RFIs indicated that none of the bidders or any of their employee s ever viewed the BIM. In fact, the first RFI revealed and the subsequent government amendment #3 centered on correcting sheets 293, 298,

PAGE 171

171 317, 322, 323, 324, 433, 435, and 436 of 454 total sheets which had gross errors (Gee, email dated December 27, 2006) According to current LRL BIM Manager, Wayne Stiles, RFI#1 caused them to admit that, we had egg on our face after that one (Stiles, personal conversation, July 26, 2007) but Stiles later pointed out that this was a design team error that could happen on any job, and was not caused by anything related to the new BIM process used on the job (Stiles, personal email, August 23, 2007). However, setting the construction drawings errors aside, LRL showed great progress from their original start only a year ea rlier in 2005 when thee project team started in MDS before they knew they determined that it was obsolete. According to Huston, AR decided to go to BIM because they wanted the goals accomplished in MDS to be re-iterated in BIM in a more interoperable way. It was too expensive to keep porting all the MDLs and rebuilding all the code every time a new version of MicroStation came out (Huston, personal conversation, July 24, 2007). AR did an evaluation of the BIM packages primarily based on an assessment accomplished by Ms. Beth Brucker (CERL), and the CADD/BIM Center who accomplished evaluations of Revit, Graphisoft and Bentley. According to Huston, in the summer of 2004, HQ USACE and AR decided to go with Bentley because of the different disciplines (e .g. MEP, Structural, Architectural) and the flexibility that Bentley gave them to work with their existing software that were mostly Bentley products. Huston admitted that this was third hand, verbal knowledge, and that he did not know why or how this dec ision was made, but remembered vividly that when he started, CERL told him that his job was NOT to evaluate software (Huston, personal conversation, July 24, 2007). Huston served as the BIM and BIM PIT Manager over the design team consisting of Dan Hawk, Jeremy Nichols, Brad Allan, and Brandon Martin. They were initially tasked to design

PAGE 172

172 the project in BIM and develop a standard to use for the plan at the time to contract with the six IDIQ contractors to build all Army reserve centers This was one cont ract with 6 firms which later expired at unknown date which is why the RaleighDurham ARC was awarded as a one time contract. Huston said that it was LRLs job to b uild the knowledge base to mentor in house and A E firms. With that in mind, LRL built t he dataset and database within one year knowing that it would be the template for future ARCs across the United States. At this point, they had created their own model. However, after formal Bentley training paid half by ERDC and half from AR, they reali zed their dataset was the weak link so they nearly started over and utilized the approach implemented in the Seattle District configuration which made the workspace more project centric to have something to contract around and deliver back and forth, mea ning that they changed the way the files were stored. This served as the impetus for the CADD -GIS Technology Center project to establish the BIM corporate template dataset for design and construction (Spangler, telephone communication, October 12, 2007) of which Mr. Van Woods is now the lead of the BIM SubCOP Workspace Team. In paraphrased words from Huston, the workspace creates an independent configuration that can sit on a server with a small footprint. It does not interfere with anything else like other applications. It is self contained for greater control over things file storage QA/QC. Huston felt that this approach was more beneficial because the data can more easily be converted into Construction Documents (CDs). Again, Frye and Bonham soug ht to create a BIM partnership with industry. AR hosted an AE Workshop APR 24 26th of 2007 in Louisville where the following companies attended: Mason and Hanger, RSP Architecture partnered with Ghafari, URS, Jacobs, CH2Mhill, HNTB Arch., Burgess and Nip le, etc. In Hustonss view, they participated in training that was not

PAGE 173

173 effective a t the beginning of LRLs BIM initiative T he beginner courses provided by Bentley proved to be an inefficient use of the teams time and efforts because it was too simplifi ed for their requirements LRL then developed a training workshop modeled on Seattles experience with having Bentley trainers becoming part of the project team and providing project -specific support and training which consisted of 2 weeks as mentioned e arlier in the chapter While t he first week was focused on technical training in TriForma tools, t he second week was devoted to coaching the team to further develop real world design project. After this second round of training, LRL initiated weekly mode ling meetings where they would accomplish trouble shooting, tackle design issues and assign upcoming tasks. These meetings were run by architect, Dan Hawk and BIM Manager, Brian Huston Hawk and Huston worked together throughout the entire process as t he champions of the program Both felt t his was a very good arrangement for tackling the issues surrounding the BIM initiative ; because the BIM was started by engineers and designers but it was managed by the BIM manager. Because ACSIM -AR allowed for an extended design schedule, the p roject allow ed time for the extensive learning curve users faced when working in the new environment This provided time for adjustments to the model and other initiatives These include implementing Groove Virtual Office software and Bentleys ProjectWise for coordination of the project, which included managing meetings tasks and tracking the data about the data Groove Networks Inc. provided desktop wor kspace software powered by M obile collaboration S ervices, to provi de LRL a better way of working together online. The PDT developed t he model work f low by trial and error T he end result is shown in Figure 4 2 7

PAGE 174

174 Figure 4 2 7 LRL Modeling Workflow [Adapted from Brucker et al. 2006 ] This consisted of brea king the work flow into three main areas These areas were system models, where designers give input to the model; master model, where the lead technician reference d system models and created extractions; and the 2D extractions and sheets, where the detai ling and annotation is completed. In a way, it was similar to traditional drawing, and paper space, but with a third dimension for managing the process of extracting data from the model into the required 2D output in the construction documents. When Husto n was asked if he thought that BIM had effects on construction, he said that, we will have significant savings regarding RFIs due to collaboration and coordination improvements. He also expects that the BIM PIT approach will decrease by 30 40%. His evidence supporting this claim was that when he asked the team how long it would take to design the Menasha project, they responded that it would not take the 11 months allotted, but instead 11 weeks.

PAGE 175

175 Louisville interview #3: Shenita McConis Another valu able interviewee was Shenita McConis. According to McConis, t he model workflow LRL used beg an with pre defined data known as cells and modules (McConis 2006). This ensured the data being manipulated represented only information that had been verified through the BIM Managers quality control process. Each module could be linked to a space or (room) from the Army Reserve design guide and came from the legacy data in MDS BIM modules were standard rooms with 3 D space information complete with all i nterior components including furniture, lighting, ceiling grid, HVAC an exhaust systems. This information for each standard room was taken from the MDS data developed by the Army Reserve years earlier. The modules d id not contain all of the data needed to create the BIM, but they were good start ing points that ensured everything in th e BIM was compliant with applicable CADD standard s as well as the Design guide as soon as they were used See Figure 4 28 for a listing of the types of modules used in the Raleigh Durham ARC BIM. Regarding System Models designer s used a specific tool known as default data for design creation System models are at the heart of the BIM data set, because this is where the design is created; similar to the model space in traditional 2D drafting procedures This is where most of the first week of the training workshop focused on educating the BIM design team. Another component of the workspace was the Master Model From the system models, the project lead technicia n (PLT) created references that in turn created the Master Model. Then, t he PLT ran extraction s from the master model to create standard sheet file s for construction documents The PLT emphasized that a ny changes to the sheet file made the BIM obsolete. Therefore, he suggested to design team members that they make changes to the system models, and then re run the extractions rather than working in the extractions themselves. LRL was able to have TriForma produce more information for the CDs than NWS, w ho still, even with their

PAGE 176

176 challenges, had about 90% from the extractions. LRL probably had more like 95% or more coming from extractions which is probably a good rule of thumb. An example is door schedules at LRL which were drafted in annotation at NWS CODE FUNCTION TITLE 1 ADS Administrative Support 2 ARM Armory 3 ASH Assembly 4 BCR Broadcast Room 5 BKR Break Room 6 BTR Battery Room 7 CHR Chair Storage 8 CLS Classroom 9 CLW Controlled Waste Storage 10 CON Conference Room 11 ELC Electrical Room 12 FLM Flammable Storage 13 FLO Office Full Time Shared 14 FMS Facility Maintenance Storage 15 FSO Family Support Office 16 FTP Office Full Time Private 17 GN1 Generic Room 1 18 GN2 Generic Room 2 19 GN3 Generic Room 3 20 ITC Information Technology Closet 21 JNT Janitor 22 KTH Kitchen 23 LBS Library Storage 24 LIB Library 25 LRC Learning Center 26 MEC Mechanical Room 27 MLR Mail Room 28 M-TLT-LOC-SHO Men's Toilet, Locker and Shower 29 MTO Office Maintenance Shared 30 MTP Office Maintenance Private 31 M-W-HC-TLT Men Women Handicap Toilet 32 NOC Network Operations Center 33 OSP Supply Room 34 PHY Physical Fitness 35 RRO Recruiting/Retention Office 36 TEL Telephone Equipment Room 37 TLR Tool Room 38 TRS Training Aid Storage 39 VLT Arms Vault 40 W-TLT-LOC-SHO Women's Toilet, Locker and Shower Figure 4 28. Extracted Schedule from the LRL BIM showing various modules (rooms) [Adapted from McConis 2006] Another benefit of using the MDS data was the data contained in the furniture Library. Eac h of the standard rooms required specific furniture as defined by the Army Reserve with the use of MDS. Each piece of furniture wa s tagged with specific i nformation, including name, type, size, and location and ha d a 2D representation linked to 3 D data for use in the mo del and

PAGE 177

177 extractions (Figure 4 29). The TriForma software used to accomplish the BIM design had the capabilities to read this information due to its native link to the Bentley file format In turn, LRL used the BIM to generate rep orts or schedules such as door and window schedules used in the creation of the construction documents This capability allowed designers to elicit accurate and up to date data quickly from the model Figure 4 29 shows a list of the furniture types br ought into the BIM from MDS and Figure 4 3 0 shows an example of the 3 D furniture geometry With data like the room modules and furniture, the data evolved quickly. Huston labeled this phenomenon as dataset e volution Figure 4 33 shows a graphic of the way LRL visualized dataset evolution for the ARC dataset. In order to contract for a specific dataset and the entire BIM, LRL must provide a st arting point for the designer. The pilot Raleigh project ARC (Figure 4 32) serves as the standard design for all future ARCs. The following is a list of projects implemented through the BIM methodology at LRL: Raleigh Durham, NC USARC; Homestead USAFR l odging f acility ; Youngstown USAFR l odging f acility ; Ft. McCoy USAR w arehouse; Beaver Falls USAR ; Menasha USAR Other Projects scheduled for design are the Niagara Falls USAR Fire & Crash Rescue Station and Scott USAFR Center

PAGE 178

178 Furniture Types:FILES AND STORAGES STORAGE CABINETS WARDROBE CABINETS SEATING TABLES DESK UNITS FITNESS EQUIPMENT POWERED PANELS NON-POWERED PANELS POWER INFEEDS POWER POLES POWER RAILS DUPLEX OUTLETS WORK SURFACE TOPS DESK SUPPORTS RETURN DESK SUPPORTS STANCHIONS SYSTEM STORAGE DESK ACCESSORIES TASK LIGHTS Figure 4 29. Furniture Types Imported from MDS and used in the LRL BIM [Adapted from McConis 2006] Figure 4 30. Example of 3 D furniture imported from MDS into BIM application [Adapted from McConis 2006]

PAGE 179

179 y y Identify Changes to Dataset BIM Manager Additions Criteria Changes Software Enhanced Cell libraries Module catalogue TriForma BIM Workspace Family and Part Definition Component Definition Seed files Level libraries A / E and In -house Project BIM Deliverables Quality Control and TestingTri Service CADD Standard, Software and Workspace Compatible, Configuration Control Board Review

PAGE 180

180 Figure 4 3 2 Rendering of LRLs first 3 D BIM, the Raleigh Durham and subsequent standard ARC design [Adapted f rom McConis 2006] Louisville interview #4: Rosemary Gilbertson On July 25, 2007, Chief of the Army and Air Force Design Section, Rosemary Gilbertson was interviewed simultaneously with her counterpart, BIM Manager, Wayne Stiles. The interview went well because Gilbertson had an executive level perspective of BIM whereas Stiles could provide a hands -perspective. When asked what changes BIM have created in their organization, Gilbertson focused on the process rather than the technology. She said that the current BIM design teams are operating more like a team, meaning the architect gets designs started earlier than in the previous approach Before, the project team did not come together to accomplish the design, but under the BIM PIT approach, the whole team comes together to accomplish the design. Gilbertson said that at the 3050% design level, the great thing is that everyone is working in the virtual workspace. Instead of fixing problems after, the team is designing continuously together in the model. Gilbertson felt that the key was forcing the

PAGE 181

181 team to work together in the same virtual space, which in turn helped the design proces s immensely. The disciplines play together much better (Gilbertson, personal communication, July 25, 2007). Furthermore, regarding staffing, Gilbertson said that BIM teams need to be comprised of the top of the line folks. LRL chose the individuals w ho had a comfort level with the technology and can do attitude as opposed to the possibly the more tenured individuals. Above the design team, management needs to commit to supporting BIM 100% because their support was crucial for success to providing things like space for the BIM PIT, empowerment to accomplish the design, and scheduling the work. When asked what implications BIM has on the construction phase, Gilbertson referenced their partnerships with A -E firms like Mason and Hanger. This revealed a perception that in house designs on BIM do not have as large an impact on construction as the promise offered by design build contracts. This is because the BIM may die when transferring the information to GCs who may not use the same platform or have the same experience in BIM, showing and interoperability and education challenges. Gilbertson reiterated that since they started talking about BIM, they have heard more information from firms like Jacobs, CH2MHill, Black and Veatch, and Mason and Hanger who are glad to partner with the Corps and offer up their BIM content. Conversely, Gilbertson also noted that some A E firms try to convince USACE that BIM -based designs will cost more. Gilbertson felt that owners need to say that if an A E firm is going to use BIM, there should not be an extra fee, because firms have the knowledge and experience already. Whereas Gilbertson felt that LEED could possibly drive up costs due to added scope of work, BIM was different. BIM is a better way to design, so it should cost less, not more. LEED is actually a higher level of effort and more work so Gilbertson felt that it made

PAGE 182

182 sense to charge more for the design and the facility. In fact, Gilbertson went on to say that A E firms should be taking up to 10% off thei r total fee now that they are lowering liability insurance rates due to the reduced amount of errors and omissions provided through a BIM approach. When asked How will BIM change things? Gilbertson replied that she hopes it will change the way they do business. She hopes that the technology will advance and that they keep up with it. The customer drove the train: the Army reserve. The next big challenge is getting the rest of their design staff trained and converting to BIM. They need to show their other customers the benefits. For example, they want to take it into more robust operations such as facility handover through the Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE) initiative coming out of ERDC (Gilbertson, personal communicati on, July 25, 2007). Louisville interview #5: Fred Grant Also interviewed on July 25th was Fred Grant, Chief, Reserve Support Branch for LRL and CERL -PM -R. Grant began by discussing the history behind LRLs relationship with Army Reserve. In 1994, LRL wa s assigned as the AR Program Mgr at the request of AR. IN 2004, that MOA was upgraded for LRL to serve as the construction agent for all Army Reserves. It was not until 2006 that LRL officially became the CM representatives for AR, as well. Right now the total FY 07 program for the reserve MCAR and BRAC is $700M this year and a little less in 2008. Mr. Grant thought that this reflected that the AR is a very satisfied customer for LRL. When asked about BIM, Mr. Grant said, BIM is the next step in this progressionSpin into 3 D design, etc. It was interesting to note that Louisville was forced to move to Tri Forma when Bentley changed their platform and MDS no longer ran on the new platform. When asked what he thought about the new COS approach, Mr. Gra nt replied that it will be a logistic s challenge. According to Grant, LRL does not have a cookie cutter approach. They

PAGE 183

183 have small, medium, large facilities and their standard ap proach is components. Assembly Hall designs, standard office areas, recruiting offices, classrooms, etc. With MDS, you assemble the building using those standards. It brought reflective ceiling plans, furniture layouts, floor plans, etc. This was de veloped into BIM from MDS to do finishes, lighting schemes you can now make virtually any size office. Lighting patterns, etc. This makes the modules virtual and modifiable. Similarly, Gilbertson called this approach, Standard components vs. standar d buildings. In conclusion, the interviews at LRL were valuable in providing the background story on the transition to BIM within the LRL STAR team. While many of the cultural hurdles were similar to those faced in Seattle, this team differed in their te chnical approach because of their experience with the Modular Design System. As the traditional geographic barriers are eliminated in the COS approach, superior content and technical know -how like this should be established as a best practice and be rea dily available to all Corps designers. Capability Maturity Model (CMM) rating As stated earlier in this chapter, the NBIMS, Version 1.0, established a model that evaluates the maturity of Building Information Models. This tool serves as an awareness tool for turning qualitative analysis of information management into a quantitative number for greater objectivity. The Raleigh -Durham BIM project was scored by two members of the original BIM team for the project, LRL BIM Manager, J. Wayne Stiles, P.E. and the structural engineer on the project, Jeremy Nichols, P.E. (Figure 4 3 3 ) and the researcher. Using the Interactive version of the CMM, the LRL Raleigh Durham BIM project received a 40.2 score out of 100, for a Minimum BIM rating (F igure 4 3 4 ). T his was very close to the NWS BIM I CMM score of 38.2, with LRL receiving more points for harnessing the as built data and applying the knowledge to future construction projects re using the BIM geometry and data.

PAGE 184

184 Figure 4 3 3 Photograph of researcher evaluating the ARC BIM according to the NBIMS I CMM with LRL Mechanical Engineer, Jeremy Nichols; and current LRL BIM Manager, Wayne Stiles [Adapted from Hornback 2007] Figure 4 34. Capability Maturity Model Evaluation of LRL Raleigh BIM Model July 26, 2007. The area where the BIM scored the highest were in the Graphical Information and Roles or Disciplines categories. This was due to the BIM s successful completion of 3 D i ntelligent graphics and roles supported in design, pla nning, and construction through their BIM PIT and carry over to their construction contractor, Bordeaux Construction in their contractual

PAGE 185

185 language and education. However, overall the BIM was only two points higher than Seattles first BIM project and it s imilarly reflected the cross section of what most current BIM projects are: a slightly more complex 3 D version of the current suboptimal 2 D drafting approach. While their reliance on 2 D CAD was not as heavy as Seattles their project also had 15 RFIs from solicitors primarily centered on questions about errors or omissions in their plans. Compared to NWS, LRL relied more heavily on using extractions of the actual 3 D model in the Construction Documents (CDs) rather than the sub-optimal 2 D approach. Also, they modeled more of the facility, namely the structural portion. Lastly while attempts were made to use the BIM was in a large scale fashion (i.e. other than for visual aids in presentations) it has not yet been used by the construction firm nor is it planned for being used in FM phase of the facilitys lifecycle other than as -builts, which are required for this project. This BIM, like Seattles, seems to have been focused nearly exclusively towards creating traditional construction documents. This excludes constructability reviews by the contractor, O&M usage, emergency resp onder planning, or other possible applications for BIM models. Therefore, both the Seattle and Louisville District s BIM s had little more than standard information management practices compared to what would be used on any traditional design or construction project. Quantitative d ata This portion describes the technical data used to describe the construction phase of the Louisville Districts first Building Information Modeli ng (BIM) project. With the subsequent MILCON Transformation Initiative, the Louisville District serves as the Army Reserve Center of Specialization (COS). Before the COS policy letter or BIM Road Map required that COSs use BIMs, the Army Reserve elected to use the Raleigh Durham Army Reserve Center project as the pilot test for a Building Information Modeling (BIM) that would later serve as the basis for all other standardized models used to construct Army Reserve Centers. The facility consists of a

PAGE 186

186 training building, operations and maintenance shop (OMS), Vehicle Maintenance, and an Unheated Storage facility While the project had an initial government estimate d con struction cost of $11.2 million, the final awarded cost to the GC, Bordeaux Construction Company, was $13,014,501.00 due to escalations in steel costs. While the project had a bidbust in its first solicitation, it was value engineered by reducing some of the curtain walls and windows and reauthorized for a higher programmed amount (McConis 2006). The pilot project facility use category code was 17140, Army Reserve Center Building which Department of the Army Pamphlet 41528 describes as a building or complex that supports training and operations of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) units that us ually houses assembly space, classrooms, locker rooms, weapons storage, and others as needed (2006). According to Appendix A, Parts I and II for Buildings and Support Facilities, Unit Costs for the Army Facilities Military Construction Program, ARCs t ypically cost $191 per square foot and are usually about 20,000 SF. Because they are also under the purview of LRL and after talking with facility programmers at the Louisville District, Armed Forces Reserve Centers (AFRCs) with facility use category code 17141 were also included. The description in DA PAM 41528 is also nearly the same as for ARCs. The quantitative data for ARCs and AFRCs came from a consolidated RMS query accomplished by Mr. William S. Reeser, P2 Coordinator for the Louisville District. The report generated projects from Program Years (PY) 20012007. Prior to 2006, all USAR projects were managed under the geographic jurisdiction of Districts across the country. After 2006, the Louisville District centralized construction management an d RMS data entry under their LRL office. Therefore, the researcher needed to get clearance from every District in the United States to have read access to their RMS databases in order to gain access to this summarized and

PAGE 187

187 reduced information below. All c redit for this huge undertaking can be attributed to Ms. Brenda Moriarty, the Information Management Officer from the Seattle District. The same statistical data determined in Seattle were used as a basis for data collection in Louisville. This included data from quality, on -time completion, etc. However, this proved even more difficult because there were many data items that were either missing, or not completed yet, or incorrect in RMS. Figure 4 3 5 gives more information on this initial statistical ana lysis approach Figure 4 3 5 Initial Data Collection in Louisville less successful due to database reliability U.S. Coast Guard NESU, Charleston A site visit to the U.S. Coast Guard, Naval engineering Support Unit (NESU) Charleston, SC was mad e on August 1415, 20 07 at the recommendation of Mr. David Hammond, from USCG HQ. Some basic information describing the installation and operations are included here from a

PAGE 188

188 recent press release written by the Units Executive Officer (XO), Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Kenneth D. Ivery Located in historic Charleston, SC on the Cooper River at the Old Charleston Naval Base is one of the most unique support operations in the Coast Guard. Operated by the 23 person staff at Naval Engineering Support Unit (NESU)/Maintenance Augmentation Team (MAT), Vessel Support Facility (VSF) provides port engineering and maintenance support to 25 cutters in three states, manages deep water mooring for two 378 foot cutters, a 225 foot buoy tender and two major National Oc eanographic and Aeronautical Administration (NOAA) vessels. Another aspect of VSF uniqueness is its responsibility as the landlord of 100thousand square feet of office, shop and storage space. VSF supports 17 tenants including the Department of Justic e (DOJ), Electronic Support Detachment (ESD) Charleston, CGIS, Southeast Regional Fisheries Training Center (SRFTC), NOAA, and twelve other Federal, State and Local agencies. In addition to performing the traditional NESU/MAT responsibilities, VSF perform s facilities maintenance, shipping and receiving, logistics, port services, heavy equipment, and storage operations which more closely resemble an Integrated Support Command (ISC) than a NESU. To accomplish these missions, VSF relies on a single Facilitie s Manager Mr. George Skip Aldrich, in conjunction with the assistance of the 14 person MAT. VSF Charleston encompasses facilities management of four structures totaling more than 100thousand square feet and port operations for the 1350 foot long pier; homeport for five major vessels. Annually, VSF accommodates more than twenty -five visiting vessels from other U. S military services, commercial vessels, and foreign combatants. Operation of the pier and its maintenance is a demanding endeavor. Sustaining the structural integrity of the 200 pilings supporting the pier,

PAGE 189

189 maintaining safe water depth through dredging and ensuring that utility services are properly distributed and marked requires constant diligence. VSF facilities manager and MAT also provides buoy on -load/offload support to the D7s largest AtoN asset, CGC OAK and oversaw the construction of a 6000 square -foot concrete buoy storage facility. Accomplishing these missions requires the commitment and dedication of a well trained and devoted p ort operations and facilities staff, the impetus for accomplishing this vital task comes from the dedicated men and women of VSF/MAT Charleston. Classifying this responsibility as a collateral duty for MAT diminishes the importance of this vital operati on and the extensive training, and expertise required to accomplish such important missions as ensuring the safe moorings of the Coast Guard largest Search and Rescue and Law Enforcement platforms, two 378 -foot WHECs. The research accomplished was due i n part to Charlestons selection as one of the new locations for the USCGs new deep water capability and bed down of the new 425 Cutters.

PAGE 190

190 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Phase III: Decide Introduction This chapter discusses work done in the Decide porti on of the Observe, Orient, Decide Act Loop. The information gleaned in the observation phase in the surveys was used to focus data collection efforts at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer districts. Furthermore, the data collected at the district level s was used to orient a finalized research methodology to determine trend analysis Corps -wide. Therefore, this chapter discusses the follow up work and analysis accomplished in this phase before writing analysis and future work for those managing constru ction in the USACE to Act upon and use in their mission to improve their construction procedures. The end result is a tool for performing construction productivity analysis. General Information on Statistical Modeling used in Construction Successful prediction stems from accurate historical documentation. Sampling the data through key performance indicators (KPIs) therefore both describe past performance, as well as set benchmarks for predicting future performance. A review of e xisting construction productivity evaluation best practices found that leaders in the field of establishing KPIs for describing and predicting construction productivity primarily reside in the UK or Singapore Additionally the majority of research concerning construction KPIs occurs in these two regions. Furthermore, because of the multiple variables involved with assessing construction productivity, the predominant approach for modeling the quantitative evaluation of the impact of these multiple factors is through Art ificial Neural Networks (ANN). However, this research decided to take a more traditional approach in the United States: benchmarking.

PAGE 191

191 Benchmarking as a means for productivity improvement In 2007, NISTs Building and Fire Research La boratory (BFRL) researcher, Robert Chapman, stated that in light of the 2004 NIST study that served as an impetus for catalyzing widespread BIM adoption, Construction industry stakeholders need compelling metrics, tools, and data to support major investme nts in productivity enhancing technologies. The development of metrics, tools, and data is complicated because each measurement level (i.e., task, project, and industry) has many different analysis requirements (Chapman 2007). The rest of this section w ill discuss task, project, and industry level benchmarking. T he U.S. Constr uction Industry Institute (CII) is also a research organization that has engaged in benchmarking and creating metrics for construction However, like Means and other estimating ser vices their metrics are primarily task -based With large organizations like the Bureau of Labor Statistics tracking metrics that are primarily industry -based there are few, if any, metrics tracked on the project management level from the owners perspec tive. The USACE C onsolidated C ommand G uidance metric s are one of these few metrics that attempt to compare past or current performance to an expected norm. Benchmarking and metrics in international construction research It is interesting to note that NIST and the CII partnered in the summer of 2008 to establish a research team to create an approach for better collecting project management level metrics. James M. Turner, the deputy director of NIST told more than 500 owners at an August 5 7 2008 meeting i n Keystone, Colorado that NIST launched a multiyear, collaborative research effort that aims to supply the measurement science needed to bring major gains in construction productivity at the task and project levels (Tuchman 2008). Furthermore, the idea o f benchmarking construction metrics to improve productivity is not unique to the United States. The CSIRO of Australia and researchers in Hong Kong partnered to

PAGE 192

192 research benchmarking as a means to avoid rework in a study in 1998. According to Love the early management theorist Fredrick Taylor in 1915 concluded that the success of management is based upon their ability to become scientific where knowledge is characteristically acquired through systematic observation, experiment and deductive reasoning (Love et al. 1998). The noted construction productivity expert, James J. Adrian contrasts Fredrick Taylor and his approach for measuring productivity called Taylorism with an alternative management approach popularized in Post W orld War II Japan, Quality Circles (Adrian 2004). Whereas Taylorism stemmed from operations research and breaks tasks down into their smallest pieces, Quality Circles (QC) attempt to reap the benefits of both Taylorism and Adrians term of craftsmanshi p. For QCs to be effective, the supervisor forms sub-groups composed of specialists from diverse areas across the company or project to engage in continuous improvement. The goal is to act on specific problems with an interdisciplinary approach. This approach is a keystone of the very successful, but highly unpopular concept (in the United States military at least) total quality management (TQM). Similarly, Love revealed that, Australian construction organizations have generally refrained from implemen ting quality management principles. As a result, little is known about the costs of poor quality and the impact it has on an organizations performance and competitiveness (Love et al. 1998). Therefore, any recommended approach for monitoring productivit y that is also practical or desirable enough to be implemented by a real world owner or construction organization should measure performance variables that are as simple as possible, in a method that is commensurately simple, but has the maximum level of i mpact. As a result, these variables should be the primary variables in construction of interest to an owner: cost, time, and quality

PAGE 193

193 More specific variables could be generated, but they should all focus on answering back to these three primary variable s. Therefore, the research focused on existing means and methods that demonstrate successful productivity measurement. The Resident Management System (RMS) and Consolidated RMS (C -RMS) After the unsuccessful attempts to painstakingly collect 25 individual data points on each of the pilot BIM projects, it became clear that it would be important to simplify the process and align with current USACE operations. As discussed earlier, the Resident Management System and Consolidated RMS which rolls up all geogr aphically disparate RMS data across the United States, is entered in the database to determine project, and in turn portfolio, productivity. The manager of this system is Haskell Barker, who works at the C RMS Center in Simi Valley California. Mr. Barkers team has accomplished the laborious process of setting up the data management system, collecting the data, and executing the algorithms to harvest the enormous amount of data stored in the RMS. In this way, Mr. Barker turns data into information and ev entually knowledge. Establishing the baseline In January of 2008, after a teleconference with Bruce Pastorini of the USACE Jacksonville District (SAJ), Steven Spangler of ERDC CADD/BIM Center and Haskell Barker of the C RMS Center, the C RMS Center establi shed a toggle box for BIM and non -BIM projects in the user interface for Construction Managers across the USACE. Following this action, the known BIM projects were marked by the NWS and LRL pilot BIM teams (among others working on current BIM projects). Lastly, the C RMS team performed a custom query where they generated a report of all the completed and in -progress Non BIM projects that were of the same facility use category codes as the Barracks project and Reserve center, 72111 and 17140/17141, respe ctively. C -RMS sent this original information in PDF file format via email on February 27,

PAGE 194

194 2008 and then again on the first of the month, starting in April of 2008 every month until February 1, 2009. In turn, this data was converted to text and imported i n MS E xcel as a delimited text file. After extensive cleanup, and verification, the MS E xcel workbooks were evaluated with traditional descriptive statistics In this way, an expected baseline was established, but the process still was far from being something that could be easily repeatable by construction managers or District Engineers across the Corps. Metrics for construction productivity the USACE Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) program After the laborious, inefficient, and error -prone process of collecting (and sometimes calculating) 25 individual data areas on the individual BIM projects, it was apparent that this process was not repeatable and needed improvement. T he noted historian, scientist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn said Very often the successful scientist must simultaneously display the characteristics of the traditionalist and of the iconoclast (Kuhn 1962) Applying this quote, it became evident that it was important to use something that was not only statistically u seful, but already integrated into the USACE culture and daily business processes. Therefore, it was important to leverage a traditional approach for an iconoclastic result. During embedded research it was noted that the USACE already had a report card for assessing performance through their Military Construction (MILCON) program in the form of the Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) metrics MP 6 through MP 10. All districts are required to report their CCG status, which is forwarded to the Division le vel, which in turn are evaluated at the Headquarter level. As it is well known in the construction industry and corroborated by Adrian (1995) the success or failure of every construction project can be measured in terms of four variables: cost,

PAGE 195

195 time, q uality, and safety. Similarly, these are aligned with the primary metrics that USACE uses to evaluate its own competency is the CCG program. The USACE CCGs attempt to compare past or current performance to an expected norm. There are a myriad of CCG me trics used to evaluate every phase of USACE work from design to sustainability, but there are five specific CCGs primarily used to evaluate construction productivity. These five CCGs are found in the USACE construction administrators automated management application, called the Resident Management System (RMS) are metrics MP 6 through MP 10. From the RMS, geographically disparate construction managers or contract administrators can add data or query USACE databases for real time status updates on any of the active or completed projects in the USACE. Status is reported back in the following, simplified fashion: Green: CCG metric has met or is meeting the goal ; Amber: CCG metric has not met the goal by a slight margin; Red: CCG metric has not been met a nd is not close to being met Below are a list of each specific metrics and their accompanying goals, from the Honolulu Districts guidance (Won 2007): MP6: Construction p roject c ost g rowth ; o Is the projects current cost of construction within 5% of the awarded contract amount? MP7: Construction p roject t ime g rowth ; o Is the projects scheduled construction completion within 10% of the original contract duration? MP8: Project B O D t ime g rowth ; o Is the projects scheduled BO D within 10% of the original BOD? MP9: Project c onstruction t imeline ;

PAGE 196

196 o Is the projects overall delivery schedule within the timeline guidelines based on the PA amount? MP10: Project financial c loseout o Is the projects scheduled fiscal closeout within 12/15 months of BOD? When evaluating construction projects individually, each project can only meet or not meet the goal. However, for the regional Districts, or their higher sub regional headquarters called Divisions (which consist of mult iple, subordinate Districts), the metric is expressed as a percentage of the sum total of number of on-going projects in program years (PYs) 02 06 meeting the Cost Growth goal (Strock 2006). Then the average sum total when dealing with an entire Distr ict or Division is broken out into the green, amber, red ratings. For each metric, the performance level and the windows of opportunity for achieving a green rating vary accordingly. For example, for MP 6 Construction Project Cost Growth, the goal is to manage on -going MILCON Project construction through contract completion with no more than 5% total project cost growth (Strock 2006). Therefore, for a single project to achieve a green rating would require that the projects cost could grow no more t han 5% for the sum of all construction cost growth from Military Construction (MILCON) funded contracts executing a project (Strock 2006). If it did not meet this goal, the project would simply be classified as did not meet goal. However, collectivel y, an amber rating would be achieved for 8595% of the projects meeting the cost growth goal and a red rating would be applied for below 85% of the collective projects meeting the goal. Therefore, in F igure 5 1 the CCG report from RMS query ing all on -going projects for all Program Years, metrics MP 6 and MP 7 for the USACE are Amber with 89% for MP 6 and Red for MP 7 with a 68% rating.

PAGE 197

197 From the information shown in Figure 5 1, clearly the Army is not meeting their internal goals (Figure 5 1 ). In fact, as of the date that report was queried on January 22, 2009 the USACE was red in four of the five metrics tracked in RMS, and, as shown in Figure 5 1 only achieved one amber rating. Evidently, a change is needed and the USACE hopes to change this current level of performance. Figure 5 1. Summary USACE CCG Report, 22 JAN 09, showing range of 28 % 91% meeting their metrics CCG Critique Before basing a more complex strategy off the existing one, it is important to evaluate the existing CCG program critically. The single biggest criticism of the CCG program is that there is no tie between some of the administratively arbitrary metrics and the information in the C RMS. For example, the MP 10 metric requires that all constr uction projects are financially closed out within 12 months stateside and 15 months overseas. However, with only a 29% passing rate, this metric is not at all in line with what is actually occurring in the field. Intuitively, the metrics would be much im proved if they were more realistic. This could be

PAGE 198

198 accomplished by comparing project performance to historic benchmarks and then reward performance at the high end of the normal distribution while analyzing and assessing projects at the low end of the norm al distribution. Right now, the CCG metric program only looks at negative variance from an otherwise arbitrary performance level. Advantages: Appl ying Kuhns quote here about traditionalist versus iconoclastic characteristics the CCGs are good tradition alist metrics for the iconoclastic technology (BIM) to demonstrate an impact on USACE construction because they are already part of the traditionalist USACE culture. In an organization with a linear chain of command like the military, it is crucial for th e Engineer, Research and Design Center (ERDC) who is accomplishing BIM and construction research, to align their work with horizontally positioned organizations like the Armys Districts who are accomplishing the real work or construction. Because USACE Headquarters (HQ) has already promulgated their support for CCGs MP6 10 and included them in the Resident Management System (RMS), it would be counterproductive to create new metrics (for the time being) to test BIM -based projects against. Therefore, lea dership support and familiarity are the primary advantages of using the USACEs CCGs to evaluate BIMs impact on construction. Before BIM can demonstrate the type of impact that MILCON Transformation promises (like 15% cost savings and 30% time savings fo r 50 year facility lifecycles), it must first demonstrate projects that score 100% (green) compliance with existing USACE metrics like the CCGs. Disadvantages: The CCGs, like many other construction evaluation means, are lagging indicators. Their only expectation is a negative/unfavorable variance from an expected level of success. Additionally, the expected levels of success are not always tied to real world project benchmarks or key performance indicator baselines, but instead arbitrary administrative marks,

PAGE 199

199 especially in the case of MP9 and MP 10. Proper metrics should be compared to reliable historical data of real world projects, not arbitrary administrative policies. Additionally, initiatives to improve on these metrics should be tied to realistic achievable goals that stem from strategic level goals for reaching return on investments for the specific initiative. Otherwise, the initiative will never demonstrate improvement and should not be undertaken. CCG comparison and discussion In order to c ollect the data on BIM based projects versus non -BIM -based projects, the USACE Resident Management System (RMS) database administrators were contacted. They added a toggle box in the Contract Description area that allow s users to note whether or not a pro ject was considered Building Information Model (BIM) Compliant (Figure 52). In this way, known and future BIM projects could be easily differentiated for research purposes. Figure 5 2. New BIM Compliant toggle box in Resident Management System (R MS) construction management database interface (Note: This is the BIM compliant LRL pilot BIM project, so it demonstrates compliance but is not editable under this logins security rights and is therefore grayed out )

PAGE 200

200 Next, data was extract ed using the Consolidated RMS (C RMS) database. In this query, projects with the barracks facility category code (72111) or Army/Armed Forces Reserve Center category code (17140/17141) were compared to the test bed BIM projects in Seattle and Louisville, respectively. A ll completed projects of the aforementioned facility category codes and meeting the requirements necessary to appear in a CCG report were generated. This yielded 5 7 individual projects completed from 20022009 in variou s locations around the United States. Of these 57 projects, two were thrown out because they were less than $5M and were not comparable to either BIM -based project. Using the central limit theorem, the data was summarized and evaluated for 90% and 95% co nfidence intervals to describe two classes of projects that were comparable to the Seattle and Louisville projects. First one class of projects indicative of the Army Reserve Centers was chosen with characteristics between $5M and $20M and had a 540 day duration expectation Then, the second group was indicative of barracks or dormitory projects, consisting of projects over $20M and a 730 day expected duration Comparing the BIM projects Next, the two pilot BIM proje cts metrics from Seattle and Louisville were compared to two control populations using the CCG metrics from all the similar, completed projects from the past using the students t test. The two pilot projects were then compared to the confidence interval data from the past completed projects. Results were accumulated individually by applying the same procedure to past projects CCG data and creating statistical norms through the Central Limit Th eorem (CLT) approach. This included calculating the mean, standard deviation, standard error and then 90% and 95% confidence intervals for the data based off the 90% and 95% Students t values. Upon completion, the BIM based projects were compared through simple, automated IF statements in the spreadsheet that labeled the result with one of three possible choices: OUTSIDE (red ),

PAGE 201

201 OUTSIDE+ ( blue) or INSIDE (green). If the result was INSIDE, then the BIM -based value was within the CI for the given metric and typical of the control population If the label was OUTSIDE + then the BIM -based projects performance was highly favorable (blue) If the label was OUTSIDE then the BIM -based projects performance was highly u n favorable (red) and outside the CI See Figure 5 3 for summary analysis and comparison colors for the LRL and NWS BIM project comparisons to the control population. Figure 5 3. Unabridged results from Central Limit Theorem Comparison of BIM -bas ed pilot projects to control population of similar facility use category code. (Note: red is highly unfavorable, green is within the expected range, and blue repres ents highly favorable Also, note t here is no clear trend regarding the BIM -based results ) While Figure 5 3 may look like an overwhelming amount of data, Figure 5 -4 shows a summary of summary of the scores for the two pilot projects. However, starting at the top and working left to right reveals that the chart is relatively easy to underst and. The data at the top of

PAGE 202

202 the chart represents the summary information from the field of similar projects and their MP6 9 performance values. MP 10 was discarded because it was a pass/fail variable and could not be analyzed on a continuum or distributi on. Below the control population summary data, the two pilot projects are compared to the summary data according to the 95% and 90% confidence intervals. If the pilot project performance value was inside the interval, then it received the INSIDE (gree n) score. I f it was outside the interval, it received the commensurate OUTSIDE (red) or OUTSIDE+ (blue) score. In summary, the scores of the two pilot projects were very different. The Louisville project s cored favorabl y (blue) in two categor i es : expected contract duration and duration from NTP to BOD. However, it also scored unfavorably (for the 90 % CI) on two categories dealing with cost: award amount and total contract amount. In every other area, the Loui sville BIM project was unremarkable, scoring within the 90 % and 95% confidence intervals for expected values. Figure 5 4. Summary of BIM based project results when compared to 90% and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the control population of simil ar construction projects The Seattle BIM project scored unfavorably in t hree categories dealing with time: % time growth compared to expec ted (for mods and options) and BOD % time growth. However, it

PAGE 203

203 should be noted that i f the Seattle District had used an expected duration in line with projects of similar dollar value (730 days for projects over $20M) they would have scored in either the blue or green zones across the board. Instead, they were overly optimistic about the expected duration of this project and estimated duration of only 540 days. Most telling however, is that the Seattle project (despite delays due to new LEED considerations, technology, and later mold) still finished in the blue region for an actual overa ll duration of only 743 days. Both this value a nd the minor 13 -day time -growth on duration were favorably outside the 90 and 95% CIs for projects of similar scope and type. Figure 5 4 shows a summary breakdown by percentage of how ea ch pilot BIM project scored compared to their individual control populations. Discussion Louisville BIM project In addition to the statistics discussed here, it is important to close the loop on the qualitative elements of how the BIM based design impacted the construction process for each pilot BIM facilities. Unlike the Seattle BIM p roject, the Louisville projects construction was managed by an office other than the district where it was designed. The Raleigh ARCs construction was managed by a Resident Engineer from the Seymour Johnson AFB Resident Office of the Savannah District Mr. Stephen T. Blanchard, P.E. In a telephone interview on November 13, 2008 at 1409 hours, Mr Blanchard had several important points to note about the BIM based projects construction. When asked if he knew it was a BIM -project, Mr. Blanchard acknowledg ed that his staff knew, but it was Louisvilles first and his offices first. He felt that, It was kind of a learning process for them [LRL]. But as far as the construction management was concerned, we have had minimal differences compared to regular projects. Since the end product was a set of plans, their staff and contractor used the BIM -based design the same way they would for any project.

PAGE 204

204 One notable difference in cost and effort towards the end of the project was that his office was compelled to get a specialized A/E to do the as -builts. The contractor, Bordeaux, went to a specialized sub -contractor to accomplish this bid item from the initial solicitation. According to Blanchard, it cost more approximately $35K for the BIM based as -builts compared to the typical $510K for the same service on a traditional project. This is substantially (3 7 times) more expensive than traditional means and need to be considered on future projects in the holistic view of cost for the entire projects desig n. Unfortunately, there were many missed opportunities on this project compared to noted advantages of most BIM based projects in industry. LRL did not, nor Mr. Blanchard s office, use any unique visualization approach, like camera shots, 3 -D sections, o r perspectives to help aid in construction or constructability. Nor did LRL or Mr. Blanchard s team use any conflict detection software. Consequently, his team had a lot of mechanical issues as well as structural issues with the light gauge truss syste m. He thought that this could be due to the truss manufacturer changing the truss layout from what was originally designed. To counteract the problems, the contractor added some structural steel in its place after approval from the structural engineer. As a COS project, this ARC design will be built many more times in the coming years, so it is important to document all these changes and have a process for knowledge management to complete the information loop back to the LRL BIM design team and future c onstruction managers. A nother benefit promised by BIM -based projects is improved handover through a COBIE deliverable. LRL has been working with Army Reserve Command to plan the handover to the

PAGE 205

205 user so they can use it in their d ay to day maintenance items Mr. Blanchard said his office had no guidance on what types of information to put back into the overpriced as -builts. Regarding non BIM specific items such as change orders and RFIs, there were significantly more mod[ificati on]s and changes than on normal projects according to Mr. Blanchard. From his perspective, Mr. Blanchard thought that the LRL design team was still learning the BIM modeling process and did not have enough time to go back and check their finish schedules color schedules, a lot of loose ends were left loose on this project. Also, he was not sure if this knowledge or information will carry forward to other BIM based designs over and above what is documented in the RMS database. When asked about the t ime growth this project experienced, Mr. Blanchard said that a 67 day time extension was granted for design errors; 45 days attributed to building changes with the structure roof, sheathing, brick lintels and one was a weather delay, or an admin delay. Regarding cost growth, this was mainly due to changes to the building (33 contract changes to date 7 or 8 have been site work, rest interior) which Blanchard noted was unusually high for a project with this scope. He said that a few were pretty subst antial, but most were small (less than $10K) and several were credit modifications such as design calling for things not needed to get credit back and within budget. Some specific areas of changes include the structural steel which was an $80K change, an d another big one was the parking lot: The LRL prescriptive specification called for placing a type of stone that did not work in North Carolina because when the contractor attempted to crush the granite stone, it did not get crushed, just moved arou nd. This delayed the exterior paving up for several months while going around and around on what to use for the drainage layer. LRL s geotechnical engineers eventually had to

PAGE 206

206 travel to Raleigh to witness a trial run and deleted the granite drainage la yer for $60K. The team then replaced it with an aggregated base course (ABC) which was more typical for the area. There were also nine ( 9 ) additional modifications pending as of the date of the telephone interview The USACE o we d the contractor time for mechanical and HVAC changes for designing and installing a hood over the range in the kitchen of the facility. It is important to note that this violated code and was n ever included in the original BIM -based design. In summary, the LRL project exhibi ted many opportunities for improvement on future design and construction projects for Army Reserve Centers. To the USACEs credit, however, the experiences on this project would have been typical on any project and rather than losing them in the vacuum of singular, unique projects, this information can be captured, modeled, and improved for future design and construction management. Subsequently, this information and lessons learned can be used the next time this project is built at another ARC location. This is what the COS initiative intended to accomplish, and as evidenced by this pilot project, it is sorely needed. Discussion S eattle BIM p roject When comparing the Seattle BIM -based project to the control population, the words of the Contract Manager John Herem, come to mind, Seattle found that operating in a BIM environment gave them an edge, but because of lack of buyin, the contractor did not. The technological benefit of the BIM -based was never realized by the contractor, who faced many probl ems once on site including interferences as well as weather and mold delays due to their administration of the project and approach with the unusual material type of Heavy (Type V) Timber construction in the Pacific Northwest. Conversely, had they taken a dvantage of the virtual building model, it is likely that some of their problems could have been avoided.

PAGE 207

207 Further statistical analysis After completing the initial series of test s based on the student s t test further analysis was accomplished to determine if the tests completed could be used with confidence to report the noted trends. F or most primary tests central to MP6 9 in the Army Reserve Center control population the n or sample size was very close (within a few integers of) the preferred sample size calculations for a 15% Coefficient of Variance For example, for MP 6, the n was 15 and the preferred sample size was either 36 for the 95% CI or 24 for the 90% CI. However, with respect to the b arra cks projects, there was much more variance in the control population. While there was a fair n sample size of 42, the preferred sample size calculation resulted in 358 for a 95% CI or 248 for a 90% CI. Therefore, there either needs to be more data (higher n) or the data needs to be further subdivided so that there is less variance among the projects in the sample. Results Overall, both the Seattle and Louisville BIM -based project s had statistically significant (when compared to the control populations in this research) differences with the typical barracks or reserve center facility projects. However, without a clear trend, t his information does not substantiate the overwhelmingly positive data collected earlier in the research through practitioner surveys regarding key perf ormance indicator s Strangely enough, the Seatt le -based BIM project, which demonstrated the stochastic nature of typical construction projects due to common construction management problems like time growth due to HVAC interfer ences, weather, and mold showed little impact from its supposed technologically superior BIM design. In fact it surpassed its peer projects for overall duration of similar sized projects. T he hypothesis for this research was that there is a po sitive correlation between a BIM based approach and construction management productivity. Through qualitative means (interviews) and quantitative means, (statistical analysis) the BIM -based projects did, in fact,

PAGE 208

208 demonstrate varying levels of positive impa ct. However, with the limited sample size and scope of the control population, this data should only be used to establish correlation and not causation. As indicated by the Seattle project, more complex models would be required to account for the myriad of variables that exist in the design and construction facility lifecycle like mold or other factors In addition, much more data would have to be collected in order to make any claims about BIM -based designs causing construction productivity gains. Discu ssion The business case and argument for the USACE to adopt this benchmarking approach is compelling. Currently, their internal metrics, the Consolidated Command Guidance (CCG) program has no way of determining if their innovation will yield any significa nt results on a portfolio -wide level in line with their goals. In the Corps move to breakdown the geographic boundaries and focus on optimizing construction by facility type, they need an approach that establishes statistically sound confidence intervals to allow them to know what to expect, reward/emulate those projects that surpass their expectations, and evaluate/document those projects that fall short of their expectations. It is recommended that the USACE adopt a procedure to allow for the use of their meticulously collected data for documenting benchmarks whereby similar projects of type, cost, and duration are compared. Administratively -driven metrics are of little value and fail to reward superior performance and only document the existence of inferior performance. Before identifying new metrics that mitigate the disadvantages in the CCGs, it is recommended that the USACE follow the model established by the Construction Industry Institute in their benchmarking productivity metrics initiative. This would include placing more emphasis on USACE construction managers completing their existing construction management database, RMS to provide USACE with reliable, historical project data. Then, the

PAGE 209

209 USACE should use this enormous amount of data to es tablish baseline data for construction of different facility types, geographic performance, seasonal construction performance, etc. In this way, the USACE would have a reliable starting point for creating new metrics to assess construction management ef ficiency, and could possibly use a re tooled version of the same CCGs that still focus on cost and time to deliver a quality project. Namely, in the short term, the MILCON Transformation goal of 15% project cost savings and 30% quicker durations could use d as metrics in the method described in the answer to the next question below. Similar to the methodology espoused by Brunso and Siddiqis (2003) the USACE should use its historical project data in RMS to generate benchmarks and comparative metrics from the historical data. Projects would be organized data collections according to facility use codes, geographic regions, and seasonal weather considerations. The data should exhibit a normal distribution for cost and time metrics according to all of the ways described above. Projects outside a specified confidence interval (CI) (such as a 95% CI) of the normal distribution would be analyzed to determine contributing factors for success or failure. In this way, initiatives could be undertaken based off the real world data in turn compared to the historical database to evaluate the initiatives ability to demonstrate tangible performa nce benefits. If the initiatives demonstrated a historical improvement, their new data points could be linearly extrapolated into the future to predict upcoming norms. BIM, along with other MILCON Transformation initiatives like modularity or the Centers of Standardization (COS) initiatives could also be assessed. Gradually, the data would evolve from static reporting to real time access on all projects worldwide to help decision makers at any point in the facility lifecycle from inception onward.

PAGE 210

210 Both the Louisville and Seattle pilot BIM projects demonstrated favorable and unfavorable statistically significant effects in the construction phase of their lifecycles when compared to a control dataset of similar proje cts W hile the evidence supports the hypothesis, there is no definitive trend either positive or negative that can be a ttributed to BIM aiding construction productivity. Research Questions At the beginning of this research, the existing gap in current research helped shape four research questions that served as the driving force for the work accomplished here. A fter years of work, the questions now have answers as seen below. Does a Building Information Modeling (BIM) approach in the design phase have an impact on the construction phase? In Phase I, survey respondent data showed that there was a perception that BIM had a p ositive impact on the construction phase of the facility lifecycle. In Phase II, interviews and case study analysis revealed that participants and stakeholders in pilot BIM projects thought there were both favorable and unfavorable impacts on the construc tion phase. In Phase III, statistical analysis showed evidence that confirmed the hypothesis: employing BIM in the facility lifecycle yielded a statistically significant effect on the construction phase in the two pilot projects studied but there was no trend indicating BIM causes favorable advances in construction productivity. If so, how does BIM affect construction? The surveys demonstrated industry stakeholders perceptions about where BIM most likely helps construction. The top three KPIs percei ved as most benefitted by BIM were: quality, cost, and schedule. In the course of on-site research and interviews with BIM designers and managers, there was a myriad of positive BIM effects on construction including: improved

PAGE 211

211 coordination, increased desi gn confidence, conflict detection, and simplified phasing. There were also negative effects including: capital and time for software procurement and training, necessary organizational changes to optimize BIM process, CD creation, contracting concerns and questions. However, the pilot projects from 2005 were meant to unearth these challenges and the Army set about solving them during the BIM process. Lastly, while the statistical analysis shows that the BIM projects experienced statistically significan t performance values compared to the control data set, there was no trend indicated and more research would need to be accomplished in order to demonstrate causation. What types of information can be leveraged in a BIM approach and to what degree? What beg an as a personal research question took on a life of its own. The second research question was answered in a parallel research effort in conjunction with the National BIM Standard Testing Team. The end product, the Interactive Capability Maturity Model ( I CMM) is now the National Standard for evaluating BIM maturity and is used to define what threshold constitutes a Minimum BIM at one end of the spectrum; as well as visionary BIM experts who are achieving maximum levels of information management succes s The I -CMM has also garnered interest from the A IA TAP Community of Practice the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (ICCCBE), and online newsletters like AECbytes through either companion research efforts or accepted publications To what degree does BIM affect construction? As stated earlier there a re many anecdotal examples in industry of specific problems that BIM designers and managers encounter in which BIM either help s them overcome design ch allenges or pose new challenges for integrating workflow, but in order to provide statistical support a longitudinal data collection and comparison needs to take place over a long period of time with a large sample size

PAGE 212

212 How do owners determine whether investments in improved technology (BIM) result in measureable benefit ? As referenced earlier, CII and NIST both advocate a scientific approach where benchmarks and careful productivity measurements will show whether or not introducing variables yield results. While the Army has the CCGs and the USAF has their Ribbon Cutter metrics, these only measure performance or improvements compared to administrative mandates and are not capable of demonstrating productivity improvement correlation or causation attributable to the introduction of a variable in the facility workflow. In fact, there were no documented programs in place at the test locations where owners ha ve implemented a scientific method for assessing changes in their construction productivity in relation to introduced variables. Chapter 6 will discuss how to apply th e benchmarking approach used in this research for successful productivity measurement in the U.S. Army and Air Force to start measuring the R in ROI Industry -wide, BIM ROI has come to the forefront as a primary consideration. Published in November 2008, the McGraw Hill 2008 Smart Market Report on BIM showed the timeliness of the rese arch here, as it also sought to answer several of the questions originally posed here two years earlier. However, with the massive resources of McGraw Hill and 26 unique sponsors of the individual report, the McGraw Hill BIM Smart Market report series is the default gold standard regarding the current state of the market with respect to BIM implementation, information, and more. In particular, the most recent 2008 Smart Market Report targeted ROI as a primary concern (Figure 5 5). In the report, 48 % o f the BIM experts surveyed said they were tracking BIM ROI at a moderate level or above (Gudgel 2008). From the two highlighted firms in case studies PCL and Holder, t he initial ROI was 300 to 500% on projects where BIM

PAGE 213

213 was used (Gudgel 2008). A foll ow up survey of AGC BIM Forum members in November of 2008, found that the average perception of ROI on BIM to be between 11% and 30% Figure 5 5. RO I: Measuring the Value of BIM [Adapted from Gudgel 2008 ]

PAGE 214

214 CHAPTER 6 FUTURE WORK Phase IV: Act F uture Research There are several things that were unable to be accomplished in the course of this research or that could have been executed differently. It is advisable for future researchers to take this into account if they pursue similar research build ing on the results here. The overarching component lacking in this research was evaluation of ROI related to BIM. ROI could have been addressed in the surveys, interviews, and lastly in the statistical data analysis, and would have been extremely benefic ial to owners who are deciding on how best to invest in BIM and when they can expect to see their investments bear fruit. Rather than focusing on clerical or minor improvements that could have been made in the previous three phases of research (observe, or ient, and decide) since they have already been noted through open answered comments in the survey and interviews, it is more beneficial to focus on what types of future work could be supported by using the two tool s that were created, validated, and recomm ended here. This includes the benchmarking approach and the NBIMS I CMM for measuring BIM information management maturity. First, t he benefit of the benchmarking approach is that it answers the basest of scientific questions is there a difference when s omething has been changed? Therefore, the benchmarking tool could be applied to nearly any variable that may affect construction productivity either directly or indirectly. This includes sustainability measures, modularity, pre fabrication, construction automation (robotics), radio -frequency identification, virtual reality, sensors, or nearly any other current initiative in the AECO industry. Similarly, the tool is applicable across categories like industrial, private, public, commercial, medical, and r esidential

PAGE 215

215 construction industries. This tool should be used any time unbiased comparison data is required to help decision makers determine benefits from innovation. A Simple Plan for Implementing Benchmarking to Evaluate MILCON Productivity Improvement in the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force Because the need exists currently, it is also beneficial to discuss how owners like the ones studied here (the DoD) could benefit from employing this tool. The U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force already collect a great deal o f information related to measuring their productivity. However, their current use of this information is sub -optimizing the potential analysis of this data. By only using the data as lagging information to determine variance from expected admi nistrative requirements, the services are missing out on using the data as a benchmarking process to improve current, and predict future, productivity. The benefit of this proposal is that it requires very little change in the most difficult portion of t he process collecting the data. Instead, this proposal focuses on what to do with the data once it is collected. Step 1 The first step necessary is to ensure all construction managers are entering the data fully and completely in a standardized fashion. The database is only as strong as its weakest entry and can only analyze what it contains. In other words, Garbage In, Garbage Out but at least make sure the garbage gets in there! One way to ensure data entry is to align the contract manageme nt databases with existing overarching interfaces such as the P2 financial system which is already required for progress payments. Decreasing duplicative data entry yields benefits of greater data accuracy as well as compliance with entry requirements.

PAGE 216

216 S tep 2 Once the data is assembled in an ODBC or Oracle database, provide all data under one queriable key code like Project Number or Contract Order. After that, all project fields under this key code should be available for analysis similar to that foun d in a MS Excel pivot table approach. This would entail an interface that could handle massive amounts of data but serve up only the construction performance values the PM needs: namely time and cost metrics. Step 3 Step 3 involves a process whereby the data is aggregated and analyzed using the students t function to retrieve a bell curve for the past performance values of all queried projects. In turn, this could provide the expected mean, variance, and range of values that the PM accomplishi ng the query could expect on a current project or predict for future work. Step 4 Step 4 entails setting goals for improvement and documenting lessons learned and best practices from past projects in a Community of Practice, online knowledge base, or s imilar application. These would be tagged for users and would automatically be emailed to PMs when beginning work on projects of similar scope, size, or use. Gradually, mean productivity values (such as cost/SF) would be reduced and durations would de crease asymptotically until there was less variation among standardized projects of similar category codes. This would replace gross overstatements like 30% reductions with a plan for discovering truly optimized performance through thoughtful management similar to the manufacturing industry. Also, with real -time access to reliable DoD -wide construction cost and time data, it would eliminate requirements for buying outside estimating services like the following applications currently used in the DoD: Pa rametric Cost Estimating Software (PACES), Military Cost Assistance and Estimating Software (MCASES) or more common RS Means cost estimating

PAGE 217

217 guides. By eliminating these goods and services contracts, the DoD could save millions of dollars annually. Also since the stakeholders would be limited to using only their own entered data, it stands to reason that there would be a greater level of care when entering or querying the cost and time data to make more reliable estimates. A Simple Plan for Implementing the NBIMS I-CMM The NBIMS I CMM has been published since December of 2007 and has garnered interest from research bodies and practitioners alike. In order to increase awareness and further BIM information management maturity, the next four steps will out line ways to leverage this tool for the benefit of the industry. Step 1 One of the most beneficial features of the NBIMS I CMM is for those who have not begun to implement BIM. In this case, the recommended first step is to assess current operational cap abilities by using either the static or interactive versions of the CMM. For example, even an architecture firm that uses the National CAD Standard (NCS) to produce its plans and elevations has a place in the NBIMS I CMM. This would score a l e vel three c redit for the Graphical Information category in the NBIMS I CMM. Firms should use the CMM to complete analysis of their current operations across the board. Step 2 Next, firms should use the maturity levels beyond their existing maturity level as the ba sis for strategic roadmap planning. Carrying the Graphical Information category further, a firm should phase their software acquisitions, training, and skills to add 3 D, 4 D, and n D capabilities to their offered services. Simply by attaching goal dat es for attaining these skills to the added levels of maturity can aid firms begin their BIM journey.

PAGE 218

218 Step 3 For firms who are already accomplishing BIM -based designs and construction planning, they should use the I CMM as a menu for offering owners additio nal services with a pricing structure tied to the value added of their BIM information management services. Additionally, firms should track I CMM scores for each individual BIM accomplished. Step 4 Step 4 requires long term management of a database for p ast BIM -based designs and analysis of their I -CMM scores to find opportunities for improvement or added business in areas of underutilized information management For example, if a firms scores are climbing in every category but one, the firm could accur ately infer that their BIM approach has stagnated in that area and more training or innovation in that area needs to be accomplished Likewise, in a wellmaintained BIM database, past geometry and information management techniques can be used again and ag ain, with more rapid deployment and greater profit achieved after their initial learning curve has been overcome. Overall, the NBIMS I CMM can be implemented in a variety of ways for strategic or operational BIM information management analysis. These fo ur steps help users leverage the tool for possibly more successful BIM implementation or improvements. Recommendations for Future Study or Implementation The old sub -optimized CM by geographic location perpetuated by the Army Corps and USAF is no longer ac ceptable; as was demonstrated in the recent realignment of the Centers of Standardization in the Corps and MILCON management at AFCEE in the USAF. However, just as in the past, most MILCON work is focused on organizing the 1391 process to formally reques t money from Congress to fund projects.

PAGE 219

219 Now the same amount of work needs to be in place in order to ensure that the military acts as good stewards with the taxpayers dollars and that Congress is rewarding excellence in line with national objectives. The refore the new vision of DoD MILCON management should be aligned with the Facility Use Category Codes used in the programming phase. This aligns with the reorganization and focus on facility types no longer geographic location in the MILCON and asset management transformation efforts. Under this new model, every construction manager would know the mean, median, and mode construction durations and performance metrics for each facility type and this would be included on the 1391 for funding from Congress When the contract would be awarded, it would be under an IDIQ (unit price) or Target Guaranteed Maximum Price (TGMP) that would have added incentives for meeting or exceeding established benchmarks. These would all be tied to the established performanc e metrics. All the tools to accomplish this vision are already in place. While it would not be simple, it would be important to bring together disparate databases to "talk" to each other via the key code of facility use cat code as the field that universa lly bridges the gap across geographic location. For example, web -enabling a combination of PACES/MCASES, P2, and RMS/CRMS would create a powerful application that would control the money and Const Mgmt data for a facility throughout its lifecycle. Benefi ts for POMs, fiscal planning, problem shooting, and most importantly -aligning the DoD MILCON program across the services with what is important to construction managers across the industry time, cost, and quality and then rewarding those who partner on this path to success. Benefits of Implementation Strategically, the construction industry needs to improve productivity through greater investment in research, but this will only come after successful benchmarking initiatives as

PAGE 220

220 discussed in studies si milar to those by NISTs Chapman described earlier. Some possible benefits from this type of research will include interoperability among software applications that can provide direct benefits like those demonstrated in the aviation and automotive industr ies. Here, organizations have demonstrated productivity gains through manufacturing improvements such as reduced mock ups, increased global collaboration, and O&M improvements. Operationally, the drivers (owners) of the construction industry have the le ast amount of benchmarking initiatives for evaluating construction productivity. This seems counterintuitive because owners are the ones funding construction, but to date there have been few actions that demand construction productivity improvement from a n owner perspective, at least in the United States. Here in the U.S. the buildingSMART Alliance Internationally, the buildingSmart initiative is calling for a $ 6 00B reduction in construction costs through productivity improvements by 2020, and they feel it is conservative This is a mandate that should be embodied in owner initiatives to benchmark their construction productivity levels and then set goals that can contribute to making the buildingSMART initiative goal a reality. Tact ically, initiatives like the CIIs project supported by FIATECH consisting of benchmarking and metrics for task level construction needs to achieve greater involvement and wider scope from industrial work to commercial and residential construction segments Final Conclusion From starting this research in the spring of 2006 until the conclusion in spring of 2009, BIM has begun the massive spiral development discussed in the NBIMS published exactly half way through this research. In all, BIM adoption will be mirror the theory of evolution Species will survive through either sudden or grad ual changes and the change is inevitable. As design constraints increase, and collaboration becomes more important, BI M is the AECO industrys answer to interoperable information exchange to improve the facility lifecycle.

PAGE 221

221

PAGE 222

222 APPENDIX A USACE REALIGNMENT /ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTERS OF STANDARDIZA TION Figure A 1. Realignment/Establishment of Centers of Standardizatio n (COS), FY 06 [Adapted from Temple 2006]

PAGE 223

223 APPENDIX B SURVEY ITERATION #3: BIM4BUILDERS HARD COPY SURVEY Figure B 1. BIM Effects on Construction Key Performance Indicators Quick Survey

PAGE 224

224 LIST OF REFERENCES Adrian, J.J. (1995). Constructio n Productivity: Measurement and Improvement Stipes Publishing, Champaign, Illinois. AIA, (2006). AIA Firm Survey: The Business of Architecture. Information Technology, 6775. Bassford, C. (2006) Policy, Politics, War, and Military Strategy. Nat ional War College http://www.clausewitz.com/StrategyBook/WholeThing.html (October 1, 2007) Bazjanac, V. (2004) Virtual Building Environments (VBE) Applying Information Modeling to Buildings. Lawren c e Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. Beam, J. (2008). HQ CENTCOM Tampa MILCON Update. UNCLASSIFIED (July 23, 2008) BOMA International (2007). BOMA Mission Statement. http://www.boma.org/AboutBOMA/BOMAMissionStatement.htm (June 25, 2007). Brodt, W. and East, W. (2006). Construction to Operations Building Informati on Exchange (COBIE): A National Building Information Model Standard Project Fact Sheet http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/pdfs/bim_fs_cobie.pdf (September 6, 2007). Brucker, B. Case, M., East, W., Huston, B., Nachtigall, S., Shockley, J., Spangler, S., Wilson, J (2006). Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC TR 06 10). Building Information Modeling (BIM): A Road Map for Implementation To Support MILCON Transformation and Civil Works Projects within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers https://tsc.wes.army.mil/downl oads/ERDC_TR 0610.pdf (November 1, 2007) Brunso, T. and Siddiqi, K. (2003). Using Benchmarks and Metrics to Evaluate Project Delivery of Environmental Restoration Programs Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129(2), 119130. Chapman, R. (2007). Metrics and Tools for Construction Productivity. NIST -BFRL Project Information, http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/projects/projcontain.asp?cc=8601032000 (Jan. NIST BF RL Project Information (Jan uary 29, 2008). Cottrell, D. (2006). Contractor Process Improvement for Enhancing Construction Productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Managem ent 132(2), 189196. Cox, R.F., Issa, R.R.A., and Ahrens, D. (2003). Management's Perception of Key Performance Indicators for Construction. J. Constr. Engrg. And Mgmt., 129(2), 142151. Cullis, B. (2005) Geospatial Mandates Pave Way for DISDI. Military Geospatial Technology Online Edition, 3 (2).

PAGE 225

225 DAgostino, B., Mikulis, M., and Bridgers, M. (2007). FMI/CMAA Eighth Annual Survey of Owners: The Perfect Storm Construction Style http: //www.fmiresources.com/pdfs/07SOA.pdf (Jan uary 21, 2009) Department of Defense (DoD) (2008). Base Structure Report: Fiscal Year 2008 Baseline. http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2008Baseline.pdf (February 12, 2009). Department of Defense (DoD) (2009). Budget Materials http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/budget_justification/index.html (February 12, 2009). East, E. W. (2008). July 2008 BIM Information Exchange Demonstrati on. buildingSMART Alliance website http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org/pdfs/bim_infoexch_demo_summary.pdf (September 16, 2008) Ezell, L. (2007). BIM for FM. The Military Engineer 99(649), 4950. Gallaher, M., OConnor, A., Dettbarn, J., and Gilday, L. (2004). Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Indus try NIST GCR 04 867. Gudgel, J. (2008). Building Information Modeling: Transforming Design and Construction to Achieve Greater Industry Productivity McGraw Hill SmartMarket Report. www.analy ticsstore.construction.com (January 20, 2009). Hale, B. (2007). Nomination: Architect of the Year Award Hammond, D. (2007). United States Coast Guard Web Enabled BIM Projects 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winner http://www.bimwiki.com/@api/deki/files/167/=9__Project_Narritive.pdf (June 12, 2008). Hardy, M. (2006). GSA Mandates Building Information Modeling Federal Computer Week http://w3.gsa.gov/ClipsMgt.nsf/PDAWebToday/09CFE365 -D C995AA18525723300 3 D 8B33?OpenDocument (J une 15, 2007). Headquarters, Department of the Army. (2006). PAM 41528, April 11, 2006. Headquarters, Department of the Army. (1994). Technical Manual 5 8004. Programming Cost Estimates for Military Construction May 25, 1994. Ho, P. (2007) GSA: 2006 Pilot Project Successes 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winner http://www.bimwiki.com/@api/deki/files/159/=26_ _project narrative.pdf (June 12, 2008) Hornback, T. (2007). Air Force Major Researches Effects of Information Modeling. Louisville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 30, 2007. Jackson, R. (2007). Leveraging Technology to Improve Construction Productivity (ICP). FIATECH http://www.fiatech.org/projects/ijs/icp.htm (Jan. FIATECH (Jan uary 29, 2008).

PAGE 226

226 Kam, C. (2006). 02 GSA BIM Guide for Spatial Program Validation. GSA Building Information M odeling Guide Series http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/GSA_BIM_02_Appendix_v 09_R2C a3 l_0Z5RDZ i34K -pR.pdf (June 15, 2007). Kam, C. (2007). Our National Building Information Modeling Program: Highlights from 2006. 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winner http://www.bimwiki.com/@api/deki/files/161/=30_ _Project_Narritive.pdf ( J une 12, 2008 ). Kennett, E. (2005). Charter for the National Building Information Model (BIM) Standard. NIBS FIC websit e. http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/ pdfs/NBIMS_Charter.pdf (October 1, 2007). Kennett, E. (2006). New NIBS Group to Create U.S. BIM Standard. Building Sciences A Publication of the National Institute of Building Sciences Vol. 30, March. Khemlani, L. (2007) Top Criteria for BIM Solutions: AECbytes Survey Results. AECbytes http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/2007/BIMSurveyReport.html AECbytes (October 12, 2007). Kosiak, S. M. (2004). Analysis of the FY 2005 Defense Budget Request Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions University of Chicago Press. Kunz, J. and Fischer, M. (2007). Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies and Implementation Suggestions. Stanford Center for Integrated Facility Engineering http://cife.stanford.edu/online.publications/WP103.pdf (June 14, 2007). Lee, A. (2005). nD Modeling A Driver or Enabler for Construction Improvement? RICS Research Pape r Series, 5 (6). Livingston, H. (2007). National Standards Evolve Slowly: While the National CAD Standard plugs along and plugs in, the National BIM Standards Project gains momentum. Cadalyst Copyrighted August 16, 2007, http://aec.cadalyst.com/aec/article/articleDetail.jsp?ts=100107020144&id=449711 (October 1, 2007). Love, P., Smith, J. And Li, H. The Propagation of Rework benchmark Metrics for Constr uction. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Vol 16 (7), pp.638658, http://www.emeraldinsight.com /Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/Emerald FullTextArticle/Pdf/0400160701.pdf (August 28, 2008). Matta, C. (2009). U.S. GS A 3 D 4 D Building Information Modeling http://www.gsa.gov/bim (January 21, 2009).

PAGE 227

227 McConis, S. (2006). Building Information Modeling for a Standard Army Reserve Center. Indiana Plant: The HF Group McCuen, T. And Su ermann, P. (2007). The Interactive Capability Maturity Model and 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winners. AECbytes Online Journal. Viewpoint #33 (December 6, 2007). Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of the President of the United States. (2004). Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) Business Enterprise Integration Directorate (2006). Real Property Acceptance Requirements Document Draft V5.0. Overton, K. (2007). Seattle District Modern Day Technology Leader Recognized in Baltimore. Flagship: Seattle District, 19(2), 9. Richards, C. (2003). A Swift, Elusive Sword: What if Sun Tzu and John Boyd did a National Defense Review? Center for Defense Information. http://www.12manage.com/methods_boyd_ooda_loop.html (August 15, 2008) Shibaro, S. (2005). FY2005 Dirtkicker Award Criteria. United States Air Force. Sonmez, R., and Rowings, J. (1998). Construction Labor Productivity Modeling with Neural Networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124(6), 498504. Strock, C. (2006). USACE Fiscal Year 20072009 Consolidated Command Guidance. HQ USACE Business Practic es Division https://corpsinfo.usace.army.mil/rm/ccg/historical/FY07_CCG_Ch1.pdf (Oct. HQ USACE Business Practices Division (Oct. 19, 2007). Strock, C. (2007) Constructing Quality Facilities for our Soldiers. http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/oct06/story1a.htm (July 21, 2007). Takash A. (2007). 3 D techn ology transforms design process. U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/milcontrans/bim.htm (July 21, 2007). Tardif, M. (2007). Architect Creates Design Synthesis Software: Onuma Planning System Allows Integration of Vast Amounts of Info rmation AIArchitect http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0817/0817rc_face.cfm Copyrighted: August 14, 2007. (October 15, 2007). Tardif, M. (2007). BIM: Three Emerging Trends. AIArchitect http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek07/0928/0928rc_face.cfm Copyrighted: September 28, 2007. (October 1, 2007).

PAGE 228

228 Temple, M. (2006). Realignment/Establishment of Centers of Standardization (COS), FY 06 https://cadbim.usace.army.mil/MyFiles%5C3%5CUSACE%20COS%20realign%20Mar06 .pdf (July 21, 2007) Temple, M. (2007). Update on the Corps of Engineers MILCO N Transformation: 03 May 2007 BG (P) Bo Temple Director of Military Programs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cemp/milcontrans/samespeech.ppt (July 21, 2007). Thomas, S. (2002). Benchmarking Productivity Metrics. CII, http://construction institute.org/scriptcontent/ac2002slides/hile.ppt (Jan. CII, (Jan. 29, 2008). Tuchman, J. (2008). NIST Unveils Productivity Research Effort at CII Event. Engineering News Record August 18, 2008. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), ER 11101 12. Engineering and Design Quality Management. USACE. (2006). CADD/GIS Technology Center, Waterways Experimentation Station, (WES) Vicksburg, MS. Center Headlines https://tsc.wes.army.mil (January 21, 2009). USACE (2006). Engineering and Construction Bulletin (ECB). No. 200615, December 26, 2006. http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/ARMYCOE/COEECB/ecb_2006_15.pdf (January 28, 2008). Van Housen, C. (2008). Signpost up ahead is new 3 D design technology. Jacksonville Business Journal, June 6, 2008 http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2008/06/09/focus2.html (Sep tember 16, 2008). Viana, A. (2007). BIM: Grass Root Experiences. http://www.fgdc.gov/participation/coordination -group/meeting minutes/2007/february/cad-gis -bim integration#299,51,BI M: Grass Root Experiences (Sep tember 16, 2008) Won, D. (2007). Metrics for Dummies! Honolulu Engineer Distri ct http://www.rmssupport.com/datafiles/usace_project_metrics.pdf (Feb. 7, 2008) Woods, V. and Solis, D. (2007). BIM at Seattle District Information Briefing For: NWD/SPD Engineering & Construction Chiefs Meeting http://www.agcwa.com/client/assets/files/districts/Army_Corp_BIM_Powerpoint.pdf (January 21, 2009).

PAGE 229

229 BIOGRA PHICAL SKETCH Upon graduation from high school, Major Suermann received a Presidential appointment to the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado. As a Second Class Cadet ( junior ), he was selected for the exchange program to the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. Before graduation from the Air Force Academy, he earned his soaring wings, completed Air Force Freefall Basic Parachutist School, Army Reconnaissance Commando ( RECONDO ) Small Unit Tactics School, and Army Air Assault Scho ol. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in May of 1997. Major Suermann s active duty Air Force assignments have included Charleston Air Force Base (AFB), South Carolina in the 437t h Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) as an environmental engineer and SABER (Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineering Requirements) Chief. In January 1999, he served as a combat design engineer at Eskan Village, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In April 2000, he trans itioned to duty overseas in the 36th CES, Andersen AFB, Guam. Here, he became the Chief of GeoIntegration and Base Development after attending PACAF s GeoBase Immersion Training Program. Upon completion of his tour in Guam, he served on the Reserve Offic er Training Corps (ROTC) Detachment 805 staff, Texas A&M University, for a short time before earning his Master of Science degree in Construction Management from the Langford College of Architecture in August of 2003. In the fall of 2003, he became a Ci vil Engineering Instructor and later Assistant Professor at the Air Force Academy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (DFCE). Major Suermann received several notable awards during his time at the Air Force Academy including the 2004 D FCE Company Grade Officer of the Year, the 2005 Augustus M. Minton Award for Outstanding Air Force Civil Engineer Article of the year for the Air Force at large, and the 2006 DFCE Outstanding Academy Educator (OAE) award as the most outstanding professor i n the Civil and Environmental Engineering

PAGE 230

230 Department. While attending the University of Florida, Major Suermann was honored as the Air Force winner for the National Society of Professional Engineers Professional Engineer of the Year Award for 2009. Major Suermann is an active member of the Society of American Military Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Associated Schools of Construction. Major Suermann attend ed the University of Florida through sponsorships funded by the Air Force Institute of Technology Civilian Institution (AFIT/CI) Program and the M.E. Rinker, Sr. Foundation as the inaugural Rinker Scholar. After receiving his doctoral degree in Design, Construction, and Planning, in May of 2009, Major Suermann received officia l orders to serve on the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) staff in San Antonio, Texas He is married to a former Naval Lieutenant and Registered Nurse, the former Megan Diane Kouns of Houston, TX. They have three beautiful and gifted children, Andrew James, Isabelle Murphy, and Jack O Connell.