<

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION

SECTOR THROUGH THE USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES   

PILOT PROJECT III : BIM ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

WITHIN A SPECIALTY CONTRACTING FIRM DIVISION 15 MECHANICAL LTD.

MARCH2013

2

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

 For some years, with the expertise and financial support of the CNRC, the CEFRIO and a research team from ETS and UBC Universities have been exploring the adoption and modeling of the building data (BIM) in the construction industry. The project allowed at first to establish the current status on the use of digital technology in the sector, in order to establish the stakes, challenges and convenient zones related to information technology. This resulted in the Building Information Model (BIM) see CEFRIO’s report “Improving efficiency and productivity in the construction sector through the use of information technologies”, September 2011.

Following this, an experimental approach was done on three construction projects in order to improve the productivity using the BIM most promising tools:

These pilot-projects where led by the following firms:

3L Innogénie (firm that developed a new constructive system) Cimaise (Architectural firm in Québec) Division 15 (Building Contractor, British-Colombia)

Scientific Research

Daniel Forgues École de technologie supérieure Sheryl Staub-French The University of British Columbia

Project Team – CEFRIO

Josée Beaudoin, Vice-President Innovation & Transfer Alan Bernardi, Project Director

©CEFRIO, 2013.All Rights Reserved.

The information contained herein may not be used or reproduced, in whole or in part, without obtaining the prior written consent of CEFRIO.

3

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Summary of Research Findings ....................................................................................... 6

2 The Organizational Perspective .............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Organizational context ..................................................................................................... 7

2.2 The decision to BIM ......................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Setting Goals .................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Adopting and implementing the technology ..................................................................... 9

2.5 Restructuring the Organization ...................................................................................... 10

2.6 Transforming their Processes ........................................................................................ 11

2.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 12

3 The Project Supply Chain Perspective ................................................................................. 15

3.1 Project delivery context .................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Project based evolution .................................................................................................. 16

3.2.1 Project 1: Large Institutional District Energy Project (the pilot project) ................... 16

3.2.2 Project 2: Medium 2-storey Institutional Healthcare Building (increased

coordination at the supply chain level) ................................................................................ 20

3.2.3 Project 3: Medium-size Municipal District Energy Project (towards prefabrication) ...

……………………………………………………………………………………………...22

3.2.4 Project 4: Renovation of a Large Commercial Building (increasing interaction within

the supply chain through BIM) ............................................................................................ 23

3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 24

4 Assessing and evaluating the impact of BIM ........................................................................ 25

4.1 Assessment and evaluation process .............................................................................. 25

4.2 The impact of BIM .......................................................................................................... 26

4.2.1 Perceived impact: the qualitative perspective ......................................................... 27

4.2.2 Measured impact: the quantitative perspective ....................................................... 29

4.3 Organizational Assessment Matrix ................................................................................. 30

5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 33

5.1 Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 33

5.2 Lessons learned ............................................................................................................. 35

4

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 39

7 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 39

8 References............................................................................................................................ 39

Appendix 1: Research setting ..................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 2: Project delivery process .......................................................................................... 43

Appendix 3: Proposed performance metrics ............................................................................... 52

Appendix 4: CSCE Paper- BIM adoption and implementation within a mechanical contracting

firm

5

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

1 Introduction

This report presents the Building Information Modeling (BIM) adoption and implementation process from a specialty contractor’s perspective. The organization studied is Division 15 Mechanical Ltd (Div. 15), a mechanical contractor based in Vancouver, BC, specializing in the commercial and institutional construction sectors. Div. 15 decided to adopt and implement BIM in 2010, thus putting in motion a process that would transform how they operate as well as how they interact with the remainder of the project supply chain. This report describes this transformation at the organizational level within Div. 15, and at the supply chain level throughout several projects.

Although many case studies have been written about BIM implementation, particularly in the United States, very few have focused on the specialty contractor perspective, particularly small and medium enterprises (SME) that have less than 50 employees. For these types of organizations, it is more difficult to acquire the necessary software technologies and to transform their organizational practices to take advantage of this new way of working. Many have worried that SMEs might not be able to keep pace with the rate of change and adapt accordingly. This research on the Div. 15 organization demonstrates that even small enterprises can reap significant benefits from BIM when they are strategic and thorough in planning out their adoption process.

The approach taken by Div. 15 to develop a strategic implementation plan provides an excellent model for organizations seeking to make this change. Of particular importance was the combination of a top-down and bottom-up approach to BIM implementation. In combination with a clear vision and realistic goals, this approach enabled them to align their organizational strategy with the BIM adoption and implementation effort. Also important was their focus on BIM implementation at both the organizational and at the project level.

We studied Div. 15 over a ten month period with a focus on the following research objectives: Document the BIM adoption and implementation process for a specialty contractor in the

AEC industry from an organizational and project supply chain perspective; Evaluate the impact of this transformational process within the organization and across

the organization’s project network; Determine avenues of development for productivity gains using BIM and other IT tools.

This report is organized as follows. First, the BIM adoption and implementation process is presented from the organizational perspective. Next, the BIM adoption and implementation process at the project supply chain level is described. Then, the process developed to assess and evaluate the impact of this transformational process is described. Next, our findings on the perceived and measured impact of BIM are presented. Finally, the lessons learned of the research project are discussed.

6

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

1.1 Summary of Research Findings

BIM facilitated the following benefits for DIV 15:

Increased visualization, coordination and validation capabilities

Increased opportunity to offer additional services and added value to clients

Increase in requests for proposals and invitations to bid on larger projects

Increased leadership within the supply chain

Increase in overall client satisfaction

Better conformance to original project scope and intent

Increased quality of communication and information flow

Increase in personnel productivity

Increase in budget conformance

Increase in information accuracy

Increase in prefabrication efficiency

The main challenges encountered by Div 15 in their adoption process were:

The project setting which limits the opportunities to implement BIM.

Inconsistency in the deployment of BIM at the project level which influences the extent of the use of BIM

Lack of control and influence on the project delivery method which results in a reactionary approach to BIM implementation at the project level.

Hiring and maintaining personnel with adequate modeling and coordination capacity

Choosing the appropriate software suite and managing technology

Garnering an adequate understanding of the impact of the transformational process across the organization

Evaluating ROI at the organizational level and the project level

The main lessons learned were:

The importance of a consistent and coherent organizational strategy in the BIM adoption and implementation process.

The opportunity for a speciality contractor to isolate the BIM adoption and implementation process

The necessity to strike a balance between a top-down and bottom-up adoption approach and the creation of a steering committee with sufficient decisional power

The importance of an agile approach to the transformational process

The importance of establishing the suitability of BIM within the organization: Is BIM right for the organization?

The importance of including all employees concerned with the transformation at the organizational level in the adoption and implementation process

7

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

The importance of establishing clear uses and requirements for the model

The need to assess and evaluate the impact of BIM

2 The Organizational Perspective

The first perspective is that of the organization itself. The process behind the BIM adoption and implementation effort as well as the transformation required to the organization’s internal structures and workflows are presented along three inter-related dimension: the technology dimension, the organizational dimension and the procedural dimension.

2.1 Organizational context

Division 15 Mechanical Ltd. was founded in 2004 and counts 50 employees deployed along a project-based organizational structure across two divisions: 13 office based employees (project managers, coordinators, estimators as well as administrative staff) who form the project management team and 37 site based employees (superintendents, foremen, journeymen). Since their foundation, they have completed over 50 projects ranging in value from $100k to $12M.

2.2 The decision to BIM

The decision to adopt BIM came from top management in 2010 following two events: first was a seminar in which BIM and its benefits were presented. Second, and most important, was the loss of a major international project to a mechanical contractor with extensive prefabrication capabilities. For Div 15’s two founding principals, BIM was a way to “get ahead of the curve” and “gain a distinct competitive advantage over other mechanical contractors”. Strategically speaking, the adoption of BIM aligned itself with Div. 15’s organizational strategy which considered three key elements: (1) Increase visibility and market-share within the mechanical contracting domain (2) Focus on design-build and design-assist type projects and (3) increase quality and productivity through modeling and prefabrication. More specifically, the motivations behind the adoption and implementation of BIM were three-fold:

To create interference models for self-performed clash-detection and coordination with their sub-trades and fabricators;

To minimize loss of productivity in the field due to rework; To pre-fabricate elements and minimize on-site fabrication in order to increase

productivity and quality of work.

While the initial impulse for this transition towards BIM came from the top management, the adoption effort itself came from the user base, denoting a balance between a top-down and a bottom-up approach to the BIM adoption process. A dialogue between management and the employees was facilitated through the creation of a committee to help steer the BIM adoption effort. The committee’s mission was to set a clear vision and establish goals and objectives which would dictate the implementation plan. They also headed the BIM adoption effort by reviewing and selecting the appropriate software and hardware packages and by implementing BIM in a pilot project. Thus, a substantial part of the decision making process was delegated to

8

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

the personnel that would be using BIM which allowed them more latitude and input in exploring other avenues such as robotic stations and laser scanning. An important characteristic of the BIM committee which was observed was that it possessed sufficient power to actually make decisions and implement the strategies that were put forth.

2.3 Setting Goals

The goals set by the steering committee for the BIM adoption and implementation process are incremental. The short term goals involve the actual adoption and implementation of BIM while the longer term goals involve an overall strategic approach to improving productivity in the field through increased use of technology and prefabrication. More specifically, these goals are:

1. Short Term Goals:

i. Obtain additional modeling software licenses. ii. Train additional personnel on the modeling software iii. Revisit detailing software purchase & training. iv. Obtain/Implement use of robotic stations for field layout. v. Design/Implement a BIM Library management strategy.

2. Medium Term Goals:

i. Develop spool drawing capability for pipe prefabrication. ii. Set up pipe fabrication shop in new building:

a. Weld pipe fabrication line b. Grooved pipe fabrication line c. Small bore pipe fabrication line d. Overhead crane

iii. Truck, trailer, forklift for material shipment to sites

3. Long Term Goals:

i. Phase in robotic stations on pipe fabrication lines ii. Phase in packaging systems for out of town shipment

Over the course of the research project, additional goals were introduced, notably:

Ease information flows between site and office personnel through the development of mobile computing capabilities;

Develop parallel modeling capabilities (such as laser scanning) to offer added value to clients;

To begin accomplishing these goals, it was necessary for the committee to: set a course of action; determine a timeline; plan and allocate the appropriate resources; and communicate the vision, objectives and goals throughout the organization. To do so, a detailed budget was created and a timeline developed dictating the manner in which these goals would be attained. A BIM guide has also been developed in which the overall approach to BIM is presented and the specifics of the adoption and implementation process are dictated. This guide is ever

9

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

evolving and was used to capture and diffuse the knowledge and experience with BIM acquired by the organization.

2.4 Adopting and implementing the technology

The choice of the BIM software represents a major commitment due to subsequent issues such as suitability, interoperability, training and support. In the case of Div. 15, the BIM committee evaluated and studied multiple BIM tools available on the market extensively. After more than a year of evaluation, the company bought a particular modeling software platform, as the company’s standard, for the following reasons:

The AEC industry (in North America) is moving towards massively implementing this software platform;

The clients who are turning to BIM are adopting this software platform; Product models and libraries are the most extensive of any available software; On-line support, user groups and communities are the most extensive of any available

software.

However, the committee did have to compromise in their decision as the chosen tool had limitations, such as:

Level of detail: The chosen software platform was not a fabrication level tool, wherein the achievable level of detail is insufficient for fabrication purposes.

Bill of material and spool sheet automation: As per the first point, the modeling software platform is not geared towards fabrication and specifically mechanical element fabrication.

Library management: Probably the most critical aspect of the chosen software platform is the lack of a clear library management system within the modeling program. Due to ever-evolving equipment and elements in the MEP field as well as an ever increasing quantity of available digital components, management of the digital information components that are inserted into the model is rendered very difficult. The modelers require up-to-date and precise components that reflect the specifications of a project if they are to produce fully integrated information models.

While the modeling software allows the organization of a better-integrated workflow with other consultants and contractors due to increased interoperability, a second piece of software had to be introduced in late 2012 in order to overcome the severe limitations of the modeling software in respect to fabrication level detailing (hereby the detailing software). This software platform is geared towards fabrication and contains a 3rd party library of elements, which is managed externally.

The choice of software had an impact due to its usability and the extent of allowable diffusion of information. The organization had to implement two different pieces of software in order to interact with other members of the project team while providing the right amount of detail for fabrication. The question of interoperability between both pieces of software has not yet fully been resolved and a substantial amount of work has to be done when transacting between both pieces of software. This increases cost associated to the modeling and detailing component of a project. However, it was noted that the organization did have a realistic view of what they were investing in and could react and adjust their strategy to fit the different capabilities of the various

10

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

software tools implemented. In terms of financial impact, the total costs for the BIM technologies specifically represent 0.78% of the organization’s average yearly sales volume. These costs include:

Software licenses (2 modeling software licenses and 1 detailing software license) Hardware upgrades Training Salaries and burden for BIM personnel

These costs were in addition to the existing costs related to the IT infrastructure including the network and maintenance.

2.5 Restructuring the Organization

Within Div. 15, the transition to BIM is transforming the way in which project teams are structuring themselves to cope with the new roles and responsibilities introduced by this transition. The transformation of Div 15’s internal structure is in part due to the creation of the BIM manager and BIM coordinator roles as well as the creation of the BIM steering committee. The BIM manager’s responsibilities include, among others:

Testing and updating the various software solutions, Creating and maintaining the organization’s BIM guidelines, Object library management, Exploratory searches to further BIM capabilities such as laser scanning, Participation in the initial set-up of a project’s BIM project execution plan

The BIM coordinator’s responsibilities include, among others:

Model creation and maintenance on a project basis Coordination of day-to-day project activities involving the information found within the

model Coordination of models with IFC drawings and as-built conditions Creation of fabrication details packages for diffusion of information to site Coordination of model with sub-trades and consultants including clash detection Flagging of conflicts and clashes and initiation of the resolution loop

Both these roles are completely new to the organization and require a specialized skill set. Div. 15 initially trained two people, one office employee who would become the main BIM manager and coordinator and one site employee, a project foreman. As BIM manager/coordinator, they chose to hire a person that would be dedicated to the BIM implementation process and train this person accordingly. In terms of field personnel, initially, the aim of the organization was to educate and inform their personnel on the scope of BIM, the possibilities it offers and the way in which their work would be affected by this transition. While field personnel were not specifically being trained to use the modeling/computer based tools, they were being informed on what the technology and the shift in process meant for them. Further personnel would come from in-house staff and be trained according to the need on a project by project basis. The firm is therefore looking to take advantage of an increase in BIM projects to educate and train additional personnel and diffuse lessons learned throughout the organization through their BIM guide.

11

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

The doubling of the project coordinator role within a project team also had a major impact on internal structures and project execution. In addition to the original project coordinator, who’srole is to manage the day-to-day information flow within the project team, the role of BIM’s coordinator appears due to the modeling and model coordination requirements introduced by BIM. Ideally, the same person would fill both roles; however, time constraints and capability issues have made it difficult to do so thus far. Furthermore, it is questionable whether both roles will be completely integrated in the near future due to the sheer effort needed to accomplish both tasks on any considerable job. This will require a complete reconfiguration of information flows towards a completely model-based workflow (i.e. all documentation is managed with the model through a third party platform).

The transition to BIM is similarly transforming the organization’s external structure through the addition of BIM centric roles and modifications to responsibilities. However, it is becoming apparent that the external project environment (i.e. procurement methods, contractual relations, etc.) will heavily influence the extent of this transformation at the project supply chain level. In this case, BIM wasn’t seen as the major disruptive force. Rather the environment or context was instead seen to influence the role of BIM within the supply chain. In turn, this will largely dictate the extent to which BIM will be used within the supply chain.

2.6 Transforming their Processes

The adoption and implementation of BIM is seen to be transforming the process dimension to a large extent. Decisions in both the technology and the organization dimensions are having major repercussions in the process dimension. Furthermore, both internal and external processes are being disrupted to suit a project environment where BIM is implemented.

For the organization, the transformation of internal workflows due to BIM has been two-fold: First, the need to develop in-house modeling capabilities where previous modeling capabilities were non-existent. Company standards and templates had to be equally developed. Second, the information and workflows between office and field personnel needed to be redefined. Traditionally detailed execution has been resolved in the field through trial and error. The introduction of BIM has shifted this resolution process to the office. In parallel, ensuring that the information produced in the office gets to the field and distributed to the field workers in an efficient manner is a priority for the organization. Where traditionally, the site foreman would have dissected and dispatched the various pieces of the contractual drawings to specific workers through face-to-face discussion and the use of hand sketches, now the information is being produced in the office and being communicated through more precise fabrication drawings.

While information flowing from the office is becoming much more precise and reliable, the expertise of the field workers is now lacking in the resolution process. Therefore a communication protocol to transfer and diffuse information is a must in order to encourage some feedback flows between the office personnel and the field personnel, notably the BIM coordinator and the site foreman. In order to put this protocol in place, there must be a clear understanding of what information is needed downstream. Also, how the information is communicated must be determined. Ultimately, the process through which plans are analyzed, models built and validated and finally documentation produced and distributed must be laid out and formalized.

12

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

It is expected that the way in which a project team interacts and collaborates will largely be transformed by the use of BIM. However, having yet had the chance to participate in a fully collaborative BIM endeavor, the transformation of Div 15’s external workflows has been relatively limited. As illustrated by project # 2, discussed below, the use of BIM in a project setting has allowed the organization to take a more predominant role within the project team. However this is not uniquely attributable to BIM but also to the procurement method, which allows the organization to have better control over project execution from early on in the design stage. Therefore there is a discernible tension between the use of BIM and the project environment whereby the project environment will dictate the use of BIM and the use of BIM will impact the project environment.

To date, Div.15 has performed almost all of the modeling in house, namely the creation of spool drawings and coordination of specific problem areas. As the extent to which BIM is implemented within the project team increases, it is expected that Div 15’s role will shift from model creator to model integrator. This is the case in project # 4, discussed below, where BIM requirements were included in the contractual documents for the sub-trades whereby the trades had to model their scope of work and provide this model to Div.15. In turn, Div. 15 modeled their self-performed scope of work and coordinated all the models together.

2.7 Summary

From an organizational perspective, the following elements were determinant in the BIM adoption and implementation process, illustrated in Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable. :

Commitment to the transformational process Buy-in from top management and the user base Alignment of the organizational strategy with the BIM adoption and implementation effort Establishment and communication of a clear vision for BIM throughout the organization Creation of a BIM steering committee Setting of clear, attainable and measurable goals and objectives Identification and empowerment of BIM champions within the organization Empowerment of the user base with the capacity for input into the decision making

process Increased agility in dealing with the consequences of the transition to BIM (such as

managing training and down-time of BIM capable personnel, as well as redefined workflows)

Thorough review of BIM software informing a choice of suitable software to commit to Allocating sufficient resources

13

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Figure 1 - BIM Adoption and Implementation Factors

15

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

3 The Project Supply Chain Perspective The second perspective is that of the project supply chain. While a clear organizational strategy is seen as key to the BIM adoption and implementation process, the project supply chain will largely influence the extent to which the organization can put that process in motion.

3.1 Project delivery context

Div. 15 performs most of its work in the medium to large commercial and institutional sectors. In trying to establish relationships with its client base, Div. 15 caters mostly to larger institutional owners, private owners and larger general contractors (GC) in the Vancouver/Lower-Mainland area. They have a relational philosophy by which they aim to develop strong ties with a small number of GCs in order to get repeat business instead of bidding on all projects that are out to tender at anytime. They are intent on developing a reputation as an “added value” contractor and wish to work with clients who have the same philosophy and “know how to perform”.

Div. 15 delivers projects concurrently across two project streams. Project stream # 1 involves the delivery of District Energy projects including fabrication and installation of Energy Transfer Stations (ETS) otherwise known as pipeline projects. Project stream # 2 involves the delivery of traditional building mechanical systems including HVAC, fire protection, plumbing, etc. Within both project streams, the organization will typically sub-contract all sheet metal and ducting work, fire protection, pipe insulation and refrigeration while plumbing, HVAC piping and equipment installation will generally be self-performed work.

Div. 15 typically acts as Prime contractor in project stream # 1 (pipeline projects) which allows them to deal directly with the client and the consultants. This translates to substantial control over the construction supply chain. Typically, pipeline projects are commissioned by larger institutional or governmental clients and are one-off, capital works, which are performed on a very large scale but are non-repeat markets. This mostly results in a design-bid-build procurement method, with the well-known challenges that this type of procurement route involves, namely fragmentation of design and construction. Div.15 has performed many projects in this stream and has thus developed an expertise in this type of project. The repetitive nature of these types of projects, the relatively small scale of modeling required, as well as the organization’s scope of self-performed work makes this type of project ideal for BIM. In fact, the organization took advantage of this by utilizing project # 1 as a pilot project for the adoption and implementation of BIM within the organization. This allowed the project team, and on a larger scale, the organization, to develop the basic modeling skills necessary and manage the redefinition of their internal workflows whilst delivering the project without too much disruption on its delivery. As the organization continues to evolve within this project stream, Div. 15 is furthering its modeling skills while slowly developing its detailing and off-site prefabrication capabilities.

Within project stream # 2, procurement methods and project delivery process become more varied, from traditional design-bid-build to a more integrated approach such as design-build. Division 15 largely favors design-build projects as this allows the company to be more intimately involved at the onset of the project and develop better relationships with the consultants and the general contractors whilst increasing control over project delivery. For projects within this

16

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

stream, the relationship will typically be with the GC, since it is the GC that will hire and transact with Div. 15. This work is typically commissioned by private owners who in turn hire Construction Managers/GCs to perform work thus allowing a more relational approach to project formation. This project stream also presents the opportunity for a more intense collaboration through the co-development of the BIM with the consultants and other trades. However, to date, this has not been the case as the organization has only been able to deploy BIM in a lonely setting, due to a general lack of BIM requirements on projects in the Vancouver market.

3.2 Project based evolution

While the organization has set a clear path in the BIM adoption and implementation process, it remains that its execution is heavily reliant on the opportunities for BIM offered by the various project environments in which the organization is involved. In other words, while the organization is well equipped to transition to BIM, the heavy reliance on the project-based nature of the AEC industry means that the rate of BIM implementation is being modulated by an external source, on which the organization has little or no control. This means that the organizational strategy towards BIM implementation must take into account the project supply chain perspective. In response to this, the organization has adopted a “triggering” process with which specific projects are targeted to incrementally develop BIM capabilities while maintaining the over-arching strategy towards BIM developed by the steering committee (Figure2).

Figure 2 - Project Based Evolution

17

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

3.2.1 Project 1: Large Institutional District Energy Project (the pilot project)

Project # 1 first consisted in the replacement of a district energy system on a large institutional campus. In this case, work was being performed within existing buildings and had to be retrofit amongst existing equipment. The work was segmented into two packages, campus-wide distribution (DPS-primary distribution) and the installation of energy-transfer station (ETS-secondary distribution). There were 8 different ETS to fabricate and install within 8 different

buildings located on the campus. The organization was acting as a Prime contractor and the project was procured in a traditional design-bid-build mode. Overall project cost for the ETS portion ofit was approximately $970,000 and was completed in a little over 10 months. Overall costs associated with BIM for this project, namely the time spent on modeling and coordinating with the fabricators, represented 4.1% of total project cost. Very little in terms of contractual BIM requirements were mentioned in the contractual documents, with the client asking for a “taste” of BIM, without specifying exact requirements.

All handoffs between consultants and contractors were paper-based, mainly 2D drawings with limited isometric sketches (Figure 3). Therefore, all modeling had to be performed by the organization itself. Being mainly underground piping, the primary distribution was deemed unessential to model, as doing so would provide no added value. In contrast, the secondary distribution (ETS) was seen as offering potential for minimizing waste through conflict resolution and

Figure 3 - 2D Issued For Construction Drawings

Figure 4 - 3D Model from IFC

18

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

prefabrication. Therefore, the organization had their BIM coordinator model all 8 ETS from the 2D contractual drawings (Figure 4- Figure 5). For certain areas deemed problematic, the mechanical rooms were laser scanned and included within the model (Figure6). This allowed the project team to resolve most issues prior to installation, validate the design and have the field workers prefabricate certain elements for easier installation.

As this was the first BIM project for the firm, considerable adjustment was required in order to successfully benefit from the models being produced. Most importantly was how the information produced in the office would get to the field and distributed to the field workers. In terms of benefits, the capacity to resolve most issues relating to installation prior to actual field work is difficult to quantify. To quote one interviewee: “[This project] would have basically been impossible to build without the use of BIM […]” meaning that the organization had a lot to lose in this project if something had gone wrong.

3.2.1.1 Project 1 summary:

1. BIM uses: a. Basic modeling of 8 energy

transfer stations (ETS) b. Clash detection within existing

mechanical rooms through laser scanning

c. Intuitively established the first version of a communication protocol between the field and the office for fabrication drawings

d. Creation of fabrication level drawings from 2D IFC drawings with accurate and precise measurements

2. Capabilities developed a. Initial modeling capabilities b. Laser scanning capabilities c. Information dissemination

between office and field 3. Main benefits and opportunities

a. Substantial scope of self performed work allowed to reap direct benefits from the modeling process

b. Minimized loss due to upstream conflict resolution c. Rapid resolution of issues due to easy visualization d. Project "would almost have been impossible without BIM" e. Increased reliability and accuracy of information sent to site

4. Main Barriers

Figure 5 - Completed Works

19

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

a. No previous in-house modeling capabilities b. Traditional D-B-B project results in little interaction with design professionals c. Paper based hand-offs and models provided by consultants were inaccurate and

could not be used for fabrication purposes. d. Level of detail offered by modeling software was insufficient to communicate all

information necessary for prefabrication (information had to be supplemented through other means)

Figure 6 - Design Validation

20

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

3.2.2 Project 2: Medium 2-storey Institutional Healthcare Building (increased coordination at the supply chain level)

Project 2 involved the new construction of a wood-framed, institutional health-care building. No BIM requirements were developed in the contracts and thus Div 15 was the only member of the project team that decided to model the project and deploy BIM to assist in the design and delivery process. The project was a design-build project which meant that the firm hired the mechanical and plumbing engineers as consultants. Also under the responsibility of the firm, were the sheet metal contractor, the fire protection contractor, pipe insulation and refrigeration contractor while plumbing and equipment installation were self-performed work. Project coordination was largely done through 2D drawings, with the exception of Div 15 who produced a BIM model. In this case, the project team modeled solely the spaces that were deemed to be problematic such as mechanical rooms and ceiling spaces. Overall project cost for the mechanical portion was approximately $1.0 million. Overall cost associated with BIM for this project represented 0.93% of total project costs.

The major difficulty faced in this project was the general reluctance by the project team to move towards BIM. Div. 15 thus worked in a lonely setting, developing their own model and holding all their sub-contractors accountable to that model. This was possible since the firm held the contracts with the sub-trades. However, the firm also modeled elements which were outside their scope of work, such as electrical trays, in order to coordinate and perform clash detection. When presented with the model, the electrical contractor refused to comply with the installation strategy set-forth by the firm, which caused serious problems as ceiling space was at a premium for this project. The lack of control over other disciplines could be viewed as a lack of contractual control and/or a basic lack of good faith. Even though the delivery method was more integrated, being a design-build type of project, there were still no provisions in the contract that prevented siloed work and individualistic attitudes. In this case, while BIM was beneficial to a certain extent, it is possible to see that the contractual considerations were not providing the necessary environment to facilitate collaboration.

In terms of benefits, again, the visualization capabilities were highly used and beneficial. As previously stated, ceiling space was at a premium, so much so that once the initial model was created by Div. 15, they noticed that many services indicated in the 2D drawings, produced by the consultants, would simply not fit (Figure7). Therefore, they had to redesign certain elements and when that did not work out, they ultimately had to ask the design team to reconsider the structure in certain areas. The design team, presented with the irrefutable visual evidence that the current structure and mechanical scheme could not work together, they re-designed the problematic areas to offer the clearance required. This was done during the design stage and was possible due to the firm’s modeling effort. The impact of this is difficult to quantify, but needless to say, had the issue not been raised during the design stage, the entire project could have been compromised.

21

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

3.2.2.1 Project 2 summary:

1. BIM uses: a. Modeled all areas with most potential for conflict (shafts, ceiling spaces, etc.) b. Decided to model all building services within those areas (HVAC, Fire Protection,

Plumbing, Electrical, etc.) to perform clash detection c. Used for clash detection and coordination of mechanical elements in specific

areas. 2. Capabilities developed

a. Increased modeling capabilities b. Communication of layout, assemblies and sequences to other disciplines for

coordination c. Improved information flow to site

3. Main benefits and opportunities a. Allowed the firm increased leadership in the project supply chain b. Deployment of BIM in a design-build role allowed more input at the design stage

and feedback through model visualization

Figure 7 - Project #2 - Coordination Model

22

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

c. Visualization capabilities allowed proof, beyond a doubt, that certain structural elements had to be redesigned for the mechanical systems to work prior to construction which potentially saved considerable amounts of time and money.

4. Main Barriers a. BIM deployed in a ‘lonely’ setting b. Contractual set-up not geared towards collaborative work and use of BIM c. Not all specialty contractors on board with the use of BIM d. Model lacking meta-data, used primarily for visualization purposes

3.2.3 Project 3: Medium‐size Municipal District Energy Project (towards prefabrication) 

Similar in nature to project # 1, project # 3 consisted in the second phase of the construction of a district energy project including distribution piping and energy-transfer stations within a new development located in the Vancouver core. While no BIM requirements were developed in the contractual documents, the organization used this project to further their detailing and prefabricating capabilities. Thus, the detailing software was implemented and its capabilities further explored. In terms of prefabrication, off-site prefabrication capabilities were limited due to the shop not yet being fully functional. However, highly detailed spool drawings were issued to the site and an on-site prefabrication area was set up where many elements were fabricated prior to installation within the mechanical rooms. As in project # 1, most handoffs between consultants and contractors were paper-based, mainly 2D drawings with limited isometric sketches. The models that were handed over to the organization were inaccurate and unsuitable for construction purposes. They also were issued “for information only” which immediately resulted in a lack of trust in the model by the BIM coordinator for the mechanical contractor. Therefore all modeling had to be performed by the organization itself. With the introduction of the detailing software, an additional step in the workflow was introduced whereby the model was created in the modeling software from the 2D drawings and then transferred to the detailing software once issues where worked-out. The output from the detailing software provides highly detailed spool drawings which are suitable for fabrication, contrary to the modeling software which has limited capabilities in that respect.

Div. 15 intends that all future projects in this stream be entirely prefabricated off-site, in the shop and shipped to site. In existing environments, such as project # 1, a laser scan of the environment will be performed in order to allow design validation prior to project execution.

3.2.3.1 Project 3 summary:

1. BIM uses: a. Used BIM to model and detail four Energy Transfer Stations b. Increased level of detail included in the model for off-site prefabrication

2. Capabilities developed a. Building on experience acquired during project #1 b. Refined communication protocols to get information to field c. Developing an expertise in the field of modeling Energy Transfer Stations d. Experimenting with tablets in the field

3. Main benefits and opportunities

23

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

a. Modeling and fabrication of Energy Transfer Stations is becoming streamlined 4. Main Barriers

a. Traditional D-B-B project results in little interaction with design professionals b. Learning curve with initial deployment of detailing software

3.2.4 Project 4: Renovation of a Large Commercial Building (increasing interaction within the supply chain through BIM)

At the time of the writing of this report, project 4 had just begun. The project involved the major renovation of a mixed-used building in downtown Vancouver. This was a design-assisted procurement method for Div. 15 who was hired by the GC working in a Construction Management (CM) setting. In this case, Div. 15’s BIM capabilities played a role in obtaining the contract as the GC was looking for BIM capable sub-contractors. Minimal BIM requirements were developed in the contracts with both the general contractor and the client. The consultant team created a BIM, however it was not brought to a high level of development (LOD) as the contractual requirements did not ask for a specific level of development to be attained. However, during the project, the client requested that an as-built model be handed over for building operations and maintenance at the commissioning phase. This project represents the first case where Div. 15 included specific BIM requirements in their own contractual documents for the procurement of their sub-trades, namely the HVAC and fire protection trades who were expected to produce models.

This project represents the first BIM based design-assisted project. From the firm’s perspective, it

Figure 8 - Model Based Detailing

24

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

was expected that BIM would be used to coordinate the mechanical rooms, mechanical shafts and other areas deemed problematic. While there is insufficient data to paint a full picture as the project is not yet fully under-way, the organization was looking towards acquiring a laser scanner to further develop their skills with these tools. More importantly, they had marked this project as a trigger to acquire robotic stations for the installation of elements such as hangers and sleeves. They were also looking to deploy tablets on a larger scale for the site foreman as well as project coordinator.

3.2.4.1 Project 4 summary:

1. BIM uses: c. First deployment of BIM in a collaborative setting d. Use BIM to model all areas with most potential for conflict (shafts, ceiling spaces,

etc.) e. Clash detection, visualization and coordination

5. Capabilities developed a. Acquiring laser scanner and further developing laser scanning capabilities b. Building on the expertise of project # 2 c. Developing capacity to collaborate through BIM within project network d. Implementing robotic stations and tablets in the field

6. Main benefits and opportunities a. Benefits expected to align with publicized benefits (fewer RFIs, better cost control,

high quality work, etc.) b. Creation of fabrication level models will translate to highly detailed as-built drawings

for the client 7. Main Barriers

a. Unclear modeling requirements from the client/owner b. Need for additional staff to be trained due to increasing BIM workload c. Lack of experience in a collaborative setting d. Need to align standards with others in the project network

3.3 Summary

From a project supply chain perspective, the following elements were determinant in the BIM adoption and implementation process:

Adopting a triggered approach to developing BIM-specific capabilities Demonstrating agility in reacting to various opportunities to further the BIM implementation

process The project setting dictating the use of BIM The extent of the organization’s influence within the project supply chain The contractual bonds dictating the relationships between project team members The lack of BIM requirements from clients dictating the development of the model Identified smaller, manageable projects as pilot to develop initial capabilities, on which

immediate benefits could be gained.

25

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

4 Assessing and evaluating the impact of BIM

4.1 Assessment and evaluation process

For an organization adopting and implementing BIM, there is a clear need for continuous and consistent assessment and evaluation of the transformational process. First, the organization going through this process must be able to justify the considerable investments required (i.e. measure return on investment (ROI)). Second, the organization must be able to assess the evolution of the transformation. Third, users must be able to receive feedback in order to make any adjustments necessary. Lastly, as is the case in other industries, an organization should be able to compare itself with other organizations in the same field through a transparent evaluation and dissemination process. Unfortunately, the construction industry is notorious for its lack of transparency; therefore such an endeavor represents a considerable shift in mentality for the industry as a whole which has yet to happen.

The assessment process is characterized by the need for a rigorous data collection method. Clear and consistent metrics must be targeted with a particular understanding of what the analysis of the collected data will yield. The targeted metrics can vary in their degree of subjectivity along a scale whose poles range from perceived impacts defined through qualitative metrics to measured impact defined through quantitative metrics. The depth and breadth of data collection will also vary due to the targeted level of evaluation. At the project level, the breadth of data collection will be more substantial as many data points will be collected at a unique point in time (or over a short period). On the other hand, at the organizational level, data collection will happen over a longer period of time for a chosen number of metrics, hence the depth of data collection will be more substantial while the breadth will be lesser than at the project level (Figure9). Across this scale, the method in which data is collected will vary from more anecdotal evidence through feedback and perceptions to hard evidence from precise data points collected through various means such as time sheets, project logs and cost reports. Most organizations have a history of collecting data and assessing certain metrics on a project by project basis. Traditional metrics track cost and schedule conformance as well as quality of work performed. However, while these metrics allow overall project performance to be tracked, they do not allow the isolatation of specific factors of project success such as the implementation of a new technology. To address this, more specific metrics have been developed over the years allowing a more precise measurement of project success and to help in evaluating the impact of new project delivery processes on project outcome. A complete list of metrics is presented in appendix C. However, these metrics are highly project specific, which poses a challenge when evaluating the impact of the transformational process at the organizational level. Isolating the direct impact of the process for the organization itself versus the impact on the entire supply chain is a challenge. Evaluating the evolution of the process requires a constant and consistent measurement protocol.

Depending on the level of precision required and the organization’s history of tracking project data, to assess and evaluate the transition to BIM doesn’t necessarily require additional data to be collected, however it may require that the way in which this data is collected and analyzed be revisited. For example, in terms of actual data collection, Div 15 has a history of tracking cost components and maintaining a cost database, which is maintained and used by the estimating department. However, while certain cost codes may be deemed sufficient for maintaining the cost database, the level of detail offered by those codes is insufficient to calculate the impact of

26

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

BIM on a specific project.

In terms of collecting, accessing and visualizing data, the use of a centralized project management software, which can create detailed reports on a variety of information pertaining to specific data sets and projects, is highly recommended. Most organizations today have this type of software in place, which facilitates the data collection and aggregation process.

In summary, a tentative assessment process is presented as follows:

1. Validate existing data collection techniques, technologies and tools including identifying metrics already assessed.

2. Establish further metrics for evaluation and refine data collection points. 3. Revise data collection techniques and tools to include identified metrics. 4. Collect data at the project level. 5. Build database for long-term data collection at the organizational level. 6. Revisit metrics and data collection techniques and tools as further capabilities are

developed.

4.2 The impact of BIM

Over the course of this research project, the impact of BIM was evaluated along the scales presented in fig. 9. Through interviews, with key individuals, as well as analysis of project data, the metrics presented below were developed. At the time of writing this report, project # 1 was completed and project # 2 was sufficiently advanced to gather preliminary data. To serve as a baseline comparison for project # 1, a district energy project comprising of 4 ETS performed by the organization, where BIM was not implemented was equally analyzed. While the use of BIM

Figure 9 - Metric Positioning Scale

27

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

is the major differentiator between both projects, another major difference was the added complexity of project # 1 due to existing conditions. In addition, as a further comparison for project # 1, a subsequent phase of the same project – performed in a non-BIM environment by a different contractor – served as a baseline from a qualitative perspective. The evaluation of the two projects determined the first step in presenting a trend on the impact of BIM, which will be further developed as the organization continues to implement BIM and develop their capabilities.

4.2.1 Perceived impact: the qualitative perspective

The qualitative perspective considers the perceived impact that BIM has had on project outcome and on value created for the owner, the project team as well as the organization. Data was mainly collected through interviews and discussions with different project team members to get feedback on their experience in each project setting. Overall trends become apparent when discussing the different projects, which can lead to a generalizable sense of perceived value creation or loss. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence, based on an individual’s experience in the field, is equally valuable in evaluating the impact of the transformational process.

The perceived impact at the organizational level was:

Increased visualization, coordination and validation capabilities Consistent with findings from other research endeavours, the modeling process offered the possibility to visualize, coordinate and validate the design prior to construction. These three capabilities, offered by the modeling process, are at the heart of many, if not most, of the benefits attributed to BIM. When interviewed for project # 1, the construction manager stated that the modeling costs were entirely justified seeing as they had “a lot to lose” on this project due to its complexity. The interviewee mentioned the capacity to resolve conflicts prior to fabricating elements as a major time saver and pointed towards the overall quality and reliability of the documentation that was being produced and sent to site as a major benefit of the use of BIM in this project. In project # 2, the modeling process allowed Div. 15 to coordinate their own trades and resolve installation issues due to limited ceiling space prior to construction.

Increased opportunity to offer additional services and added value to clients The transition to BIM offered the organization the opportunity to develop parallel skill sets which offers the possibility to influence both project outcome and the organizations bottom line. For project # 1, the organization developed the capability to perform laser scanning and is now increasing this capability on subsequent projects. Laser scanning represents a new service which is now being offered by the organization and therefore is contributing to its revenue stream. It is too early to quantify this impact, however to date it is seen as being positive. In project # 2, the modeling effort resulted in added value to the client through the resolution of costly issues prior to construction.

Increase in requests for proposals and invitation to bid on larger projects The organization noted a spike in the number of invitation to participate in larger projects where the use of BIM was targeted due to the organization’s leadership in the field and their relational attitude towards project delivery.

28

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Increased leadership within the supply chain On project # 2, the organization gained credibility and prominence within the project team through the modeling process. By bringing a coordinated model to the table Div. 15 took ownership of the project, the firm has thus offered increased value to the client as well as to the general contractor by mitigating costly issues upstream.

The perceived impact at the project level was:

Increase in overall client satisfaction When comparing project # 1 to a subsequent phase of the same project performed by an other mechanical contractor where BIM was not used, the client for this project noted a significant difference between the quality of the installations between both projects. Having the capacity to visualize and validate the installation of the equipment for maintenance purposes, the client stated that there were less “unpleasant surprises” when the project was delivered through BIM. In addition, although fewer ETS were delivered in the subsequent phase (4 ETS vs. 8 ETS in project # 1), the project was delivered 6 months late compared to 2 months late for project # 1. The client is now looking towards implementing BIM on the remainder of the phases for the district energy project while increasing the requirements for off-site prefabrication to minimize disturbance on-site.

Better conformance to original project scope and intent As mentioned, the client did perceive a big difference between project # 1 and the subsequent phase in terms of conformance to original scope and intent. In project # 1, through the use of BIM, the client was able to validate the location of valves and other elements for serviceability purposes. Where BIM was not used, there was more variability between the original intent and actual execution.

Increase in the quality of communication and information flow For project # 1, the client noted an increase in the quality of as-built drawings obtained compared to other similar projects. Furthermore, according to the construction manager, there was a significant improvement in the quality of information going to site. In project # 2, the drawings that were produced from the model were used to communicate intent with installation and sequencing of work. This was seen as greatly beneficial to the entire mechanical supply chain.

Ease of project execution and interaction with the supplier The client noted no significant differences in his interactions with the supplier that was attributable to the use of BIM.

Perceived quality of work For project # 1, there was no perceived differences in the quality of workmanship between the two phases of the institutional district energy discussed with the client for project # 1. The organization attributes the high quality of as-built drawings to the use of BIM.

29

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

4.2.2 Measured impact: the quantitative perspective

The quantitative perspective considers the measured impact BIM has had on project outcome and on value created for the owner, the project team as well as the organization. Data on project # 1 was mainly collected through project logs, timesheets, estimates and other hard project data captured through the project management software and project documentation.

The measured impact at the project level was:

Increase in personnel productivity The impact of BIM on personnel productivity was positive. There was a 2.2% reduction in site supervision costs and a 1,0% reduction in project management costs between project # 1 (BIM project) and the baseline DE project (non-BIM project).

Increase in budget conformance The impact of BIM on budget conformance was very positive. There was a 23% reduction in cost variance (estimated cost vs. actual cost) between project # 1 (BIM project) and the baseline DE project (non-BIM project).

Increase in information accuracy The impact of BIM on information accuracy was very positive. During an interview with the project manager for project # 1, it was stated that, from experience, the issued for construction drawings (IFC) were typically complete and accurate to 25%. He estimated that the modeling process rendered those drawings up to 85% accurate and complete. The remaining 15% was being figured out in the field. Therefore that gap in accuracy and completeness translates itself to time spent in the field. By reducing the amount of resolution in the field, the organization was reducing time thus increasing productivity.

Increase in prefabrication efficiency The impact of BIM on prefabrication efficiency was positive. In both cases, most elements were prefabricated on-site prior to installation. The main difference was the way in which the information was conveyed to the fabricators. This information was seen as being much more reliable and precise leading to a better and more efficient prefabrication process. Elements were deemed to be prefabricated faster and on a larger scale.

Amount of deficiencies and rework No evidence was found for the impact of BIM on amount of rework and deficiencies. Cost of rework and deficiencies were negligible in both cases, 0.01% for the baseline project and 0,07% for project # 1. The actual data collection may be in cause as a specific cost code was put in place for deficiencies, however the extent to which the employees utilized this code and their understanding of what comprised a deficiency or rework should be further investigated. That being said, while hard data is difficult to come by regarding this metric, feedback from site personnel speaks of substantial decrease in potential rework due to the quality and the reliability of the information that was being transmitted to site.

30

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Number of RFIs, COs and CDs No evidence was found for the impact of BIM on the quantity of requests for information (RFI), change orders (CO) and change directives (CD). These metrics are widely popular for the measurement of the impact of BIM on project outcome. Many projects have seen a significant decrease in RFIs, COs and CDs when BIM was implemented in a collaborative setting from the onset of the project. In this case, no significant reduction in RFIs, CO or CDs was observed in the projects analyzed. This could be due to the “lonely” setting in which BIM was deployed, the stage at which it was deployed as well as the overall complexity of the project.

Site Safety No evidence was found for the impact of BIM on site safety. In the projects analyzed, no incidents were reported which impacted project delivery; therefore the impact of BIM on site safety could not be assessed.

From the organizational perspective, keeping track of the impact over time will dictate the effectiveness of the transformational process and allow the organization to either adjust or target certain areas of improvement. Across the entire scale, increasing the depth of data collection will allow the organization to outline trends and correct them if need be.

4.3 Organizational Assessment Matrix

The Organizational Assessment Matrix (OAM), developed by the CICRG, is a tool that allows an organization to plan and evaluate their internal BIM adoption and implementation process. Mainly developed for owners, some tweaking is necessary to fit the realities of the specialty contractor prior to conducting the assessment exercise. However, overall, the OAM does help in targeting specific areas of improvement.

In this case, the assessment exercise utilizing the OAM was conducted with the organization’s BIM committee to evaluate and target areas of strengths and weaknesses in the BIM adoption and implementation process (Figure10). The main outcomes of this exercise were that while the organization had a very clear strategic approach to BIM adoption and implementation, they were lacking in the process and information categories. More specifically, they lacked in their documentation of external project and internal organizational BIM processes as well as in the definition of their Model Element Breakdown Structure and the Level of Development to which the model elements are completed.

31

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Figure 10 - Organizational Assessment Matrix (CICRG, 2012)

33

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

5 Discussion

This section discusses the main challenges and lessons learned of the BIM adoption and implementation process within a specialty contractor working in the mechanical field.

5.1 Challenges

The main challenges encountered were:

The contextual/environmental factor Over the course of the research project, the business context was seen to largely influence the rate of BIM implementation within the firm. The procurement method also heavily influenced the choice to deploy BIM. To date, the firm has only been capable of deploying BIM in a mostly ‘lonely’ setting where all modeling work was performed in-house, limiting the potential impact of BIM on project outcome. While the firm is actively seeking projects which will deploy a more collaborative BIM setting, there seems to be an overall lack of such projects being commissioned either because clients and owners are going the more traditional route or because of legal and procurement barriers that hinder the flow of information across the supply chain (ie. projects being designed in BIM but being tendered in 2D, paper–based sets). Therefore, the possibility of furthering the BIM implementation process is being limited by the actual opportunity to implement BIM, which leads to a “triggered” implementation process.

Inconsistency in the deployment of BIM at the project level which influences the extent of the use of BIM Varying levels of “buy-in” towards BIM across the supply chain seem to heavily influence the extent to which BIM is being deployed within a project setting. However, due to the mechanical contractors considerable scope of work, it is perceived as still benefiting from implementing BIM on his own, though not as much as if the entire project supply chain is developing the BIM. In a lonely setting, the effort expended on the modeling process will be much more onerous and thus diminish the potential ROI.

Lack of control and influence on the project delivery method The type of contractual relationships forged in the project supply chain is seen as influencing how the coordination efforts are being received by other members of the project team. As illustrated by project # 2, the lack of contractual relationships between the mechanical and electrical contractors lead to conflicts even though the mechanical contractor had modeled and coordinated all elements that were to be installed in the ceiling space. By acting on his own and disregarding the coordination effort put forth by Div. 15, the electrical contractor rendered the modeling and coordination effort partly irrelevant.

Hiring and maintaining personnel with adequate modeling and coordination capacity A general lack of qualified and capable personnel has an impact on the extent to which

34

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

BIM is being used at both the organizational level and the project supply chain level. There is also the risk of being able to keep the personnel once they have been trained by the organization. One way to mitigate this risk is by including clauses in the contracts through which employees must stay a minimum amount of time after their training or reimburse the cost of the training should they choose to move to another company.

Choosing the appropriate software suite and managing technology Technology management can be seen from two perspectives. First the implementation of BIM requires substantial investments in terms of hardware and software to run the models, communicate the information and share data. Many specialty contractors have limited capabilities, which aren’t sufficient to run today’s complex models. In addition, maintaining these capabilities becomes an added cost, which must be factored in to an organization’s expenses. Furthermore, there is a general reluctance to pass on this cost to the client by increasing bids on projects, as this increase may well cost the organization the project due to the lowest bidder mentality so prevalent within the Canadian AEC industry. Second, developing additional capabilities and expanding the scope of technology use requires a solid implementation and deployment plan with specific and localized resource allocation. In both cases, the adoption and implementation of BIM must be seen as a long-term investment with varying return on investment (ROI).

Garnering an adequate understanding of the transformational process One of the main organizational challenges in implementing BIM within Div 15, has been garnering an adequate understanding of BIM and how it affects the employees and their workflow. Due to this lack of understanding, the firm has had to “feel their way a lot”, implementing BIM by “trial and error” which led to some frustration on the part of management as well as the employees. Timelines and schedules, deliverables and workflows were being disrupted by the introduction of BIM and the firm is slowly adjusting as they gain more and more experience.

Evaluating ROI Evaluating ROI is a result of the impact assessment and evaluation process. The same considerations apply to the ROI calculation in that return ranges from perceived to measured and from project level to organizational level. Therefore, while the organization is the one investing, naturally the return is felt on a project basis. Thus, evaluating ROI at the organizational level is initiated at the project level. To date, ROI for Div. 15 has been perceived in a much more compelling way than it has been actually measured. In both projects # 1 and # 2, the organization benefitted from significant extra cost avoidance due to the visualization and validation capabilities as well as the increased information accuracy. In project # 1, as discussed, due to the existing conditions, the labour costs could have been much more significant had Div. 15 not used BIM. This represented a direct saving to the organization. In project # 2, the return was more widespread as the impact of the modeling process benefitted the whole project team. As an initial effort to quantify ROI of BIM in the case of project # 1, it is possible to look into the hard data that is available. While BIM costs amounted to 4.1% of total project costs, the reduction in supervision and management costs amounted to 3,2% of total project costs. By compounding this quantitative effect to the less quantifiable benefits

35

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

mentioned before, it is possible to see that the costs associated with the modeling process were most probably recuperated, if not more, hence denoting a positive ROI for project # 1. At the organizational level, by continuously tracking the ROI on specific projects, Div. 15 will be able to dictate the trend in ROI attributable to the use of BIM. This is an on-going process and will require a rigorous and iterative data collection process across multiple projects.

5.2 Lessons learned

The main lessons learned were:

The importance of a consistent and coherent organizational strategy in the BIM adoption and implementation process. Developing and communicating a clear, consistent and coherent organizational strategy towards BIM was seen as being a determinant factor in the success of Div. 15’s on-going implementation effort. By setting clear, attainable and measurable goals the organization ensured that a path forward was drawn and could be held to throughout the organization.

Isolating the BIM adoption and implementation process As the transition to BIM for a mechanical contractor represents a complete departure from the traditional workflow, there is an opportunity to somewhat isolate the process and focus it on a specific project by project basis and control the implementation process while reaping immediate benefits. While deploying BIM in a completely collaborative setting, the speciality contractor’s position in the supply chain and the control over his personal scope of work allow the speciality contractor to see immediate benefits to the BIM adoption and implementation process, through direct control and influence over his own workflow.

The necessity to strike a balance between a top-down and bottom-up adoption approach and the creation of a steering committee with sufficient decisional power While the vision and strategy for BIM came from top management, it was the user-base that ultimately made the decisions that would impact their day to day functioning such as the software choice. In addition, the tribune offered by the BIM committee for management and user base to meet and exchange on issues and developments was crucial to a clear communication of expectations, intent and execution within the organization. Furthermore, empowering the user base through decision making and possibility to explore and expand capabilities ensured a buy-in which is equally critical in the adoption and implementation process.

The importance of an agile approach to the transformational process While, as previously mentioned, overall context will modulate the rate of diffusion within the organization, specific project environments will modulate the depth and the breadth of its deployment, thus influencing the organization’s preparedness to deploy BIM. This preparedness will be influenced by the personnel that is available at the required time, their level of expertise and their capacity to execute the project requirements. Therefore the organization must demonstrate incredible agility to navigate and choose which

36

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

projects to get involved in and to what extent, unless they become overwhelmed and cannot meet demand. To date, the firm has not been faced with this challenge due to a restrained demand for BIM, however, in the near future, and with the firm’s growing expertise and reputation, this question of preparedness and agility will become an issue.

Suitability of BIM within the organization: Is BIM right for the organization? Before any implementation effort was put forth, the decision makers within the organization evaluated the suitability of BIM from their business perspective. For certain specialty contractors, transitioning towards BIM and other technologies makes sense, for others however, the return may not be worth the investment. Typically, specialty contractors whose work involves much coordination with other trades will benefit from being able to resolve issues in the office rather than in the field. That being said, as BIM gains in popularity and collaborative environments evolve to suit this transition through modified procurement and project delivery processes, specialty contractors will be called upon to play an increasingly important role in the modeling process.

Lack of field personnel in the BIM steering committee One thing that was observed is that no field personnel is involved in the firm’s BIM committee (aside from the Construction Manager). Therefore, there was little feedback from the field personnel at the moment of making decisions that would impact the information flow. Moving forward, as the firm integrates other technologies, it would be worthwhile to get some key personnel from the field involved in the evaluation process to gain their insight and feedback on the implementation process as well as further define the information and workflows at the office-field interface.

Establishing clear uses and requirements for the model In the transition to a BIM environment at the project level, the establishment of uses and requirements for BIM is one of the most crucial steps in ensuring the success of the entire BIM effort. A struggle is apparent between the expectations for the model, the intent with the modeling process and the execution of the modeling process itself. As BIM is relatively new, contractual requirements for BIM are often vague and not well defined. Furthermore, the intended uses of the BIM may be conflicting between the design, construction and operations phase. Thus three avenues of consideration become apparent in the implementation of BIM in a project setting: first, respecting the contractual requirements for BIM, second, ensuring that the scope of work included in the BIM allow the collaborating project team members to perform their work and third, ensuring that the organizational scope requirements (ie. what the BIM will be used for in the scope of work performed by the organization itself) be met. In parallel, a clear alignment must be achieved between the expectations for the model, the intent of all project team members in the modeling process and the actual execution of the model.

Challenges associated the impact assessment and evaluation process Many challenges were met in assessing and measuring the impact of the transformational process. First and foremost, isolating the impact of BIM is almost impossible due to the quantity of factors that will impact any given process within the construction sector. Second, lack of precision in data capture at the source (ie. timesheets and units performed) will skew the results of the assessment exercise and ultimately render the results unusable. Lastly, defining and tracking the right metrics throughout a project is a

37

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

challenge due to ever evolving realities of the project environment. Moving forward, some recommendations can be formulated from this experience. First, like any implementation effort, there must be support from the top management and buy-in from the users. The goals and objectives of this performance measurement must be communicated to all the employees in order to ensure their buy-in since the collection of data will start with them. Secondly, when reviewing the data from past projects it becomes apparent that data which is crucial to assessment is not being captured. Issues like cost codes which encompass too many activities or elements, timesheets with too little information, skewed budgets, etc. have to be addressed by modifying what is captured and how it is captured. Thirdly, some productivity measures were simply lacking due to not being captured. Measures such as units performed during a shift were missing from timesheets. Lastly, as illustrated by the projects studied, many benefits of BIM implementation are not easily quantifiable. There is the possibility of estimating the costs associated to issues that were caught through the model, however this evidence remains more anecdotal.

39

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

6 Conclusion

This report has presented the BIM adoption and implementation process from a specialty contractor working in the mechanical contracting field. This process was presented from two perspectives: the organizational perspective presenting the process behind the BIM adoption and implementation effort at the organizational level and the impact this has on the organization’s internal structure and workflows and the project perspective presenting the process behind the BIM effort at the project supply chain level and the impact this has on external structures and workflows.

The main objectives of this research were: (1) To document the BIM adoption and implementation process for a specialty contractor in the AEC industry from an organizational and project supply chain perspective; (2) To evaluate the impact of this transformational process within the organization and across it’s project network; and (3) To determine avenues of development for productivity gains using BIM and other IT tools.

An approach to assessment and evaluation of the impact of BIM implementation on project outcome was discussed. While the findings presented did indicate an overall positive impact on project performance at a high-level, further work is required to validate these findings. By implementing a robust approach to performance measurement, the organization will, in time, be able to further justify the initial and continued investments required in their transition to BIM.

Benefits, challenges and observations on the BIM adoption and implementation were presented and discussed following the assessment exercise. Many of these benefits and challenges reflect the findings of other research endeavours. However, this research project was unique in that it looked at both the organizational and project levels and discussed the BIM adoption and implementation process from these concurrent perspectives.

As previously mentioned, further work is needed to collect more data concerning the assessment and evaluation of BIM on project outcome. In addition, due to the relatively short time frame on this research project, one of the initial objectives concerning the study of prefabrication could not be fully carried out. Therefore, further work in this sector is needed to verify the impact of BIM on prefabrication and their combined impact on project outcome.

7 Acknowledgments

This research study was funded by the National Research Council Canada – Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP) and the Centre d’études et de recherches pour l’avancement de la construction au Québec (Center for Study and Research for the Advancement of Construction in Quebec) (CERACQ).

8 References COMPUTER INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH GROUP 2012. BIM planning guide for

facility owners. The Pennsylvania State University.

41

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Appendix 1: Research setting

1 Objectives The Division 15 Mechanical ltd. pilot project aimed to study the adoption and implementation of building information modeling tools (BIM) and their associated processes as well as to evaluate and develop avenues for potential productivity gains through workflow improvement and prefabrication within a small or medium enterprise (SME) working in the Mechanical contracting field. The pilot project focused on three determinant axes of BIM deployment within a SME:

Driving BIM adoption throughout the organization; Driving BIM implementation at the project team level from the organizational perspective; Assessing performance.

More specifically, the project aimed to study the BIM adoption and implementation process from both the organizational and project supply chain perspective. The objectives of the research were the following:

Evaluate the impact of BIM implementation within a specialty contractor in the AEC industry;

o Impact on workflow productivity; o Impact on value;

Evaluate the impact of BIM implementation across a mechanical sub-supply chain; o Impact on workflow productivity; o Impact on value;

Map out the industrial processes that lead up-to effective use of BIM tools for the prefabrication of elements for field use.

Over the course of the research project, due to time constraints, the objectives were realigned to focus more on the BIM adoption and implementation process and its impact at both the organizational level and the project level. It is important to note that while the objectives speak of studying prefabrication and its synergy with BIM tools (namely objective 3), the timeline dictated by the research project did not allow for sufficient data collection opportunities. Thus, the objectives of the research were realigned to focus more on the actual modeling and impact these models have on-site.

These re-aligned research objectives were to:

Document the BIM adoption and implementation process for a specialty contractor in the AEC industry from an organizational and project supply chain perspective;

Evaluate the impact of this transformational process within the organization and across the organization’s project network;

Determine avenues of development for productivity gains using BIM and other IT tools.

42

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

2 Research project execution

The research project was carried-out over a 10 month period during which a 4 staged, mixed-method approach was deployed. The 4 stages were: (1) Benchmarking the current state of the organization, (2) Defining the desired state and metrics to evaluate the BIM implementation process and its impact, (3) Deployment and documenting of the BIM implementation process, and (4) Data analysis and feedback.

Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, in-situ observations, participation in project meetings and intra-firm meetings and through informal discussions. This data was used to benchmark the organization and gain an understanding of the employees involved in the BIM implementation process current work practices, map out processes and information flows and provide a means to evaluate the performance measures. Interviews took place over the period of a week where top management personnel as well as project managers and the BIM manager were interviewed. They lasted between 1h00 and 1h30 and were directed at gaining insight into the functioning of the firm, the BIM adoption process and how the firm was going about with the transition towards BIM. Quantitative data such as cost data, time sheets, BIM models, plans and other project specific documents were supplied by the firm.

During stage 1: benchmarking, the “Organizational Assessment Matrix”, prepared by the Computer Integrated Construction Research Group (CICRG) at Penn State University, was used as a means to evaluate the current state as well as the desired state of BIM adoption within the organization. This assessment was performed during a meeting with the BIM committee and the results were consensus based. The results are presented below. The main limitation of this process was that the original intent of the matrix is geared towards the owner’s perspective and thus, certain categories are questionable in their relevance to the specialty contractor’s perspective.

In attempting to establish return on investment (ROI) and measuring the impact of BIM on productivity, two comparative projects were analyzed. Both projects were developed in the same project stream (explained below). One was executed without BIM and the other was executed with BIM. The analysis is presented subsequently. For this analysis, cost data, estimates, time sheets, drawings and models were analyzed. Interviews were also conducted with the management personnel involved in both projects to discuss personal experience and perceptions about the BIM implementation process at the project level.

In terms of limitations to the research project, access to members of the project teams residing outside the organization was the biggest limitation to achieving a comprehensive understanding of the impact of BIM at the project network level. This was mainly due to two reasons: first, constraints and external pressures on some of the projects dictated that there was little or no time for conducting research and two, the role of the organization within these projects dictated the use of BIM and thus the extent to which BIM was deployed throughout the project team. Hence, the perspective presented in this report is that of the mechanical contractor alone. Furthermore, while tremendous access to project data was granted by the organization, the way in which the data is collected and compiled by the organization, while sufficient to fulfill the requirements for their accounting, lacked some detail for research needs. This points towards the need for more robust data collection at the organizational level in order to facilitate the quantitative benchmarking process. Lastly, the time frame in which the research project was carried out should be extended in order to allow for a more longitudinal data collection period.

43

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Appendix 2: Project delivery process

1 Traditional project delivery process Div. 15 typically deliver projects through two different procurement methods: Traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) and Design-Assist (DA) in a Design-Build (DB) or Construction Management setting. Traditional project lifecycle phases, as developed by the AIA are, Pre-Design, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Tender/Permitting, Construction, Closeout and finally Operations.

1.1 Design-Bid-Build (DBB) By far the most popular procurement method in Canada, the DBB procurement method is one that is found when working on large institutional, governmental or large commercial projects, among others, where owners wish to receive the lowest initial price for the delivery of a project based on tender documents produced by a team of consultants. Div. 15 will typically pick and choose projects that they wish to participate on instead of bidding on every project that is out to tender. Interviewees # 1 and # 2 have noted that this procurement method is not desirable due to the laborious process that is the tender phase. In fact, over the years, they have marked a notable decline in the quality of the design and the drawings, which lead to an increase in Requests For Information (RFI) during tender phase. They impart responsibility to shortened deadlines imposed by clients. Thus, the tender process is wrought with uncertainties and the evaluation of project cost is largely based on the experience and knowledge of the personnel who is involved in the estimation process. In a DBB contract, the mechanical contractor has no design responsibilities. Fig. 2 illustrated the DBB phases and stakeholder involvement for the mechanical contractor.

1.1.1 Estimating within the Tender phase Tender is usually the first step in obtaining a contract under the DBB procurement method. Estimations are based on a set of 2D drawings and specifications provided by a team of consultants, at varying levels of detail. In the case of a DBB contract, documents are generally taken to be complete at 100%, though from the interviewees’ experience, this is rarely the case. Typically, the estimators will work with the General Manager and the Construction Manager to process the documents and outline the project scope on which to bid. In addition, on certain projects, they might involve key personnel (Project Managers, Foremen, etc.) to impart additional knowledge and refine the bid. The “estimating team” will generally go over the project documents and attempt to quantify each element and attach a cost to its procurement, installation, commissioning and servicing/warranty. Attributing a cost to elements is based on quantity with several factors linked to each particular element such as difficulty, schedule, labor, and several other extraneous factors such as weather and market conditions which are compounded into the final estimate. Furthermore, it was stated during one interview that additional provisions were made based on the consulting firms

44

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

that worked on the design due to previous experience with working with these consultants. In essence, outside of the actual count and measure of elements as represented on the plans, there is a considerable amount of factors which are taken into account that rely on the experience of the estimating team. During the tender process, the estimating team and the subcontractors who are pricing out the work will submit RFIs to refine the design intent and get as much information as possible. Clarifications of plans will be produced under the form of addendum by the design consultants. It is at the tender phase that equivalency requests are usually submitted. Estimating in this context is a highly punctual and rigid process with a distinct input (tender documents + RFIs) and a distinct output (bid).

1.1.2 Contract Award, Project Startup and Mobilization In the case of a DBB project, success will generally mean that the company has submitted the lowest bid. Once confirmation is given and the contract is awarded, the team that prepared and submitted the bid will generally review the entire package, involving the Project Manager more closely this time, to comb over the project once more, go into greater detail and ensure that no major elements were overlooked or errors committed during the tender phase that could impact the project delivery. The General Manager’s involvement with the project team will ebb as the Project Manager gets more and more involved and takes control of the project. At this time, equipment with long lead times will be ordered and a preliminary schedule will be determined. In parallel, it is at this time that the project team will be assembled, including project coordinator and field staff. Contracts will be awarded to sub-contractors based on negotiations involving all those that have produced a bid. One interviewee said that it was at this point, during negotiations with sub-contractors, that any errors or omissions that were made during tender will be negotiated and “patched-over”, risk being essentially transferred to the sub-contractors as much as possible. Shop drawings will be submitted by sub-contractors through the GC, reviewed by the consultants and redistributed so that equipment and material can be ordered and fabrication can begin.

1.2 Design-Assist (DA) The Design-Assist project delivery method is preferred by Div. 15 for many reasons. First and foremost, it allows Div. 15 to deploy its expertise and “create an overall better project”. It also allows the company the opportunity to develop relationships and create value. Typically, DA will be deployed in a Design-Build or Construction Management procurement context, with the mechanical contractor working for a GC in a Construction Management role. The interviewees state that while there is more work that goes into getting a DA contract, there usually is less competition. Typically, DA projects will be on an invitation basis where the company will compete against other firms to obtain the contract. There will be a first round of qualitative assessment of the project team put forth by the competing firms, in the form of a Request For Quotation (RFQ), which narrows the field from 5-6 firms down to 2-3. The RFQ will contain the description of the firm’s experience as well as the description of the project team and their individual experiences. It will also contain a high level quote for work which is based on very high level preliminary plans. The project team will then refine the project documents while

45

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

continually validating the price with the remaining contractors. Once design is considered sufficiently advanced to set a firm price, the 2-3 remaining firms will produce a bid, in the form of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), for the completion of works relating to the design and construction of their particular scope of work. Fig. 3 illustrates the DA phases and stakeholder involvement for the mechanical contractor.

1.2.1 Design The DA delivery method requires close collaboration between the consultants and the mechanical contractor. In this context, there is an open dialogue between team members and the consultants are open to suggestions from the field in regards to alternatives or equivalencies. This allows for opportunities to create value at an earlier stage in the project by integrating the individuals who will actually be performing work.

1.2.2 Estimating Under the DA procurement method, estimation also accounts for a major portion of obtaining a contract, as the contractor must submit a GMP. The estimation process is an iterative one. As design is being refined, the estimate is becoming more and more precise. This allows for a tighter control over the budget as well as it presents opportunities to optimize certain design decisions. These design decisions can be rapidly priced via the estimating team and informed decisions can be made as to how to proceed. Estimating in this context is an evolving and iterative process with many inputs and many outputs.

1.2.3 Project Startup and Mobilization Similarly to the DBB procurement mode, mobilization happens once contracts are awarded and the project has sufficiently been detailed in order to obtain permits and begin construction. However, as the project team has been working together for a longer period of time and that all stakeholders essentially have a good overall grasp of the project, the project start-up phase tends to be much smoother than in the DBB mode. Equipment having long lead times can essentially be ordered during the design phase, once they are determined. Also, many issues have been resolved during design due to a closer integration of the project team. However, as this process still is happening in a 2D, paper-based environment, issues still tend to arise during construction which could not have been worked out from the onset. The resolution cycle in a DA is more cooperative though, while still being submitted through the RFI process, due to the nature of the contract.

46

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Fig.2‐1–TraditionalConstructionWorkflow

47

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

1.3 Construction Once project teams are mobilized and the construction phase is under way, the project will evolve according to the schedule set forth and agreed upon with the GC and coordinated with the other sub-trades. Under both procurement modes, the construction phase is similar in that it is comprised of a series of activities and tasks, linked together, to create what was laid out in the design phase and set out in the plans and specifications. The project manager, project coordinator and foreman are in constant communication, communicating daily via e-mail and telephone. The site foreman will be in-charge of day-to-day activities, ensuring that the right materials and equipment are on site for the journeymen to accomplish their work. The project manager will be looking ahead to anticipate the schedule and ensure that the project runs smoothly. Acting as a liaison between the mechanical contractor and other consultants and contractors, the project coordinator will prepare and communicate all relevant documents (RFIs, POs, etc.). Fig. 2-1 illustrates the traditional on-site workflow during the construction phase.

1.4 Requests for information The construction phase is relatively linear. When issues arise, a disruption in the construction sequence is created. In order to deal with these issues, the project team will proceed using the RFI process. Workers who are performing the work will typically raise any issues in the field. The issue will be identified to the site foreman who will relate it to the project manager either through verbal communication (via telephone) or pictures and words (via e-mail). The project manager will assess the situation with the foreman to evaluate the gravity of the issue. If the solution is easily found and does not have any impact on the design and/or performance of the system being installed, the issue will be solved then and there and work will continue. This resolution loop is fairly straightforward and does not have a major impact on cost and schedule. However, if the issue impacts design and system performance, a formal RFI will be submitted to the

Fig.2‐2–RFIprocess

48

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

consultants for clarification. The project coordinator will create the RFI with input from the PM and the foreman and relay it to the GC who will then transfer it to the appropriate consultant. The consultant will propose a solution which is sent back to the project team via a Site Instruction (SI) if the changes are deemed to not impact cost or a Contract Change Notice (CCN) if the resolution is deemed to impact cost and/or schedule. Under an SI, the work is completed with little or no impact to the overall project performance. Under a CCN, depending on the nature of the issue, the consulting team can issue a Change Order (CO) or a Change Directive (CD). The change directive is executory and entails that the contractor performs the work immediately and submit a price for additional work. The change order entails a back and forth negotiation where a solution is priced out and re-submitted until a satisfactory solution is agreed upon by all parties. Understandably, this process takes time and is not well suited to the sequential, highly dependant nature of construction tasks. An interviewee stated that an RFI process can take anywhere from 3 days to 3 months to resolve. During this resolution time, work is halted on the problem area and workers must be reassigned to other areas within the project. In both cases (CO or CD) there is a negative financial impact on the project and project performance is lessened. Fig. 2-2 illustrates the typical RFI process.

1.5 Closeout At project closeout, the mechanical contractor must make sure that all installations are functioning properly. Thus, the commissioning period is an important aspect of his work. Deficiencies will be noted by the consultants, which have to be rectified by the contractor. All occupancy documentation, such as project manuals, must be compiled and handed over to the owner’s operations team. In addition, as-built drawings are produced and included in the closeout documentation. Typically, final payment is conditional to the reception of all specified documentation.

1.6 Post-Mortem Typically, the project team is disassembled sequentially as the project moves forward, the constants being the PM, the PC, the foreman and the site super-intendant. Once the project is completed, members of the project team will move on to a different project, sometimes overlapping two projects consecutively depending on size and nature of the concurring projects. This means that there is usually little time to do a project ‘post-mortem’ and evaluate how the project went and formalize any lessons learned to be communicated to the rest of the company. During an interview one of the interviewees stated that a post-mortem was only done when the project went wrong. However, cost data is one element that is constantly being evaluated and kept up-to date to be reused in subsequent bids. Div. 15 is also working on a weld-length performance measure where they will be determining performance of welders on what lengths of weld are being produced on a hourly basis.

1.7 Intra-organizational Communications Div. 15 will hold internal project review meetings with all project managers on a monthly basis to go over the various projects, their advancement and any issues or opportunities

49

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

that have arisen during execution. Similarly, the foremen hold a monthly meeting with the construction manager to go over the various projects.

2 BIM-based delivery process Div. 15 have developed workflows in an ad-hoc manner to accommodate BIM deployment within a project team. This is explained by their “trial and error” implementation and deployment process. Currently, all BIM projects are modeled by the BIM coordinator which acts as a supporting actor to the main project team.

2.1 Tender/estimating Div. 15 have yet to deploy BIM at the tender stage to quantify and price jobs, as they usually have too little time and the inherent risk of developing the model and not getting the contract is too great. The bidders also do not typically have access to CAD plans and creating a model from 2D paper-based plans (.PDF) would be too onerous of a task considering the marginal benefits that the process would grant. However, every new project that is being bid on is being considered in respect to its “potential for BIM”. As previously stated, no allocation for modeling is being included in the bid as Div. 15 have yet to quantify BIM to allow for this. In a design-build/design-assist mode, Div. 15 possesses a little more leeway in terms of building the BIM. As of yet, no cost data is included in the BIM as it’s level of detail is incomplete and only portions of the buildings are being modeled. This will change as projects integrate BIM more and more and complete BIMs are created by all project team members. However, Div. 15 has no plans of transferring cost data into the BIM.

2.2 Project start-up At project startup, the BIM coordinator will discuss with the general manager, project manager and the field personnel as well as refer to the plans and specifications in order to gain an overall understanding of the project scope. In parallel, she will gather information and any models from consultants. If models are unavailable, she will work with the 2D drawings to create the model, while focussing on certain areas of interest, targeted at the onset of the project, such as mechanical rooms or heavily congested spaces (shafts and ceiling spaces).

2.3 Modeling and project coordination During the modeling process, the BIM coordinator will be in constant contact with the project manager and the site foreman in order to create an accurate model that will be transferable to the site. As 2D drawings are currently being translated to 3D models, the assembly process and spatial interactions are being worked out. Thus, it was stated by interviewee # 4 that while 2D drawings were maybe 25%-30% accurate and complete, translation to a 3D model by the BIM coordinator rendered them to an accuracy of 85%. The final 15% was achieved within the model through iterative design and discussion with the foreman and the project manager (Resolution loop).

50

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Coordination with the sub-trades is achieved at the modeling stage. However, Div. 15 has little experience with full model coordination as the company has not yet had the opportunity to work in a fully 3D environment. As stated, project # 1 involved work that fell solely within the mechanical contractors scope (plumbing and equipment installation). Thus coordination was limited with other sub-trades. However, as the team had, through laser scanning and site surveys, modeled 8 of the mechanical rooms that were to be receiving this new distribution, several issues and conflicts with the existing were found and coordinated prior to construction and site installation. In the case of project # 2, Div 15 has modeled every element that was to be installed in the ceiling spaces including cable trays, piping, ductwork and fire protection. Thus, the modeling effort deployed went beyond the scope of Div. 15’s work, however, it paid off as severe issues with ceiling space were found and corrected prior to construction.

2.4 Construction Output from the model for construction purposes is paper-based. The BIM Coordinator produces sheets which show plans, elevations and isometric drawings of assemblies to be built. These are sent via e-mail to site where the foreman receives them, prints them out, marks them up and distributes them to the journey men and weld teams. Interviewee # 2 stated that the drawings produced from the 3D model where much more detailed than sets of drawings that would traditionally be found on site. These isometric drawings gave the workers a clear direction to go thus reducing uncertainty in the field. In other words, what was to be built was clearly identified and the thought process behind fabrication and assembly was streamlined for the worker. In case of conflicts raised in the field, the RFI process is initiated with the exception that the relevant portion of the model will be included in the RFI.

2.5 Project close-out At project close-out, additional documentation provided by Div. 15 relating to the BIM model will be isometric weld-maps and as-built drawings. This information is graphically entered on the drawings and is not part of the BIM model. Fig. 2-3 illustrates the workflow on a typical BIM mechanical contracting project.

51

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Fig. 2-3 – BIM Construction Workflow

52

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Appendix 3: Proposed performance metrics Table 1: Proposed performance metrics from the literature

MetricFigure 11 : BIM Adoption and Implementation Factors

Measurement Source

Actual cost vs. Estimated cost Estimate for cost of labour ($)

Actual cost of labour ($)

Estimate for cost of material ($)

Actual cost of material ($)

Detailed Cost conformance (%)

Garrett and Garside (2003)

Khanzode (2010)

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

Suermann (2009)

Cost of modeling vs. Cost of work Cost of 3D modeling ($)

Cost of overhead ($)

Actual cost of work ($)

Man hours spent per project - efficiency with cost per project

Coates et al. (2010)

RFIs Change order Number of RFIs /Change orders

(unit)

Response delay (time)

Cost of RFIs /Change orders ($)

Cannistrato, (2009)

Khanzode (2010)

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

Value (Quality of work) Design quality

Design labor

Design alternatives

Client satisfaction

Kuprenas and Mock (2009)

Tillotson et al. 2002

Woo et al. 2010

Quality control (rework) Rework Labor hours

Rework volume

Cost of rework

Forbes and Sayed, 2011

Garrett and Garside (2003)

Khanzode (2010)

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

Kuprenas and Mock (2009)

53

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Suermann (2009)

Productivity Dollars/unit (sq.ft) performed

units (sq.ft) per an hour

Labor productivity

Crew productivity

Schedule productivity

Subcontractor productivity

Forbes and Sayed, 2011

Khanzode (2010)

Suermann (2009)

Schedule Scheduled completion date (time)

Actual completion date (time)

Latency

Field Material delivery

Schedule task completion

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

Suermann (2009)

Safety

Lost man-hours due to accidents

Safety performance

Lost time accidents

Forbes and Sayed, 2011

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

Suermann (2009)

Prefabrication amount of prefabrication enabled

by the process

actual prefabrication by each trade contractor

Khanzode (2010)

Kuprenas and Mock(2009)

Communication Behavior Meeting effectiveness: agenda

appropriateness

Visualization use

Field interest in model or metrics content

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

54

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Organizational metrics Client satisfaction and retention

Speed of Development

Revenue per head

IT investment per unit of revenue

Cash Flow

Reduced costs, travel, printing, document shipping

Bids won or win percentage

Employee skills and knowledge development

Coates et al. (2010)

Kunz and Fischer (2012)

Note: This list was partially compiled by (Barlish and Sullivan, 2012)

References Barlish, K. & Sullivan, K. 2012. How To Measure The Benefits Of Bim—A Case Study

Approach. Automation In Construction, 24, 149-159. Cannistrato, J.C.,Llc 2009. How much Does Bimsave. Shop Talk, A Quarterly

Newsletter(Retrievedfrom:),Http://Bimworkx.Com/Index.Php?Option=Com_Content&View=Article&Id=47:How-Much-Can-Bim-Saveq-Cannistraro-Quarterly-Newsletter– Fall-2009-&Catid=34:Bim101&Itemid=562009.

Coates, P., Arayici, Y., Koskela, K., Kagioglou, M., Usher, C. & O'reilly, K. 2010. The Key Performance Indicators Of The Bim Implementation Process The International Conference On Computing In Civil And Building Engineering Nothingham, Uk.

Forbes, L. H. & Ahmed, S. M. 2011. Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery And Integrated Practices.

Garrett, T., Garside M., 2003. Fab Pilot Of A Multi-Dimensional Cad System, Future Fab International 14.

Khanzode, A. 2010. An Integrated, Virtual Design And Construction And Lean (Ivl) Method For Coordination Of Mep. Cife Technical Report #Tr187. Stanford University.

Kuprenas, J.A., Mock, C.S., 2009. Collaborative Bim Modeling Case Study — Process And Results, Computing In Civil Engineering, Proceedings Of The 2009 Asce International Workshop On Computing In Civil Engineering 1 431–441.

Kunz, J. & Fischer, M. 2012. Virtual Design And Construction: Themes, Case Studies And Implementation Suggestions.

Suermann, P. 2009. Evaluating The Impact Of Building Information Modeling (Bim) On Construction. Dissertation For The Degree Of Phd, University Of Florida.

55

CONSTRUCTIONANDIT

Tillotson, J., Espitalier-Noel, P., Huddleston, D., 2002. New Design Approaches To Counteract Change Costs And Impacts On Schedules, Future Fab International 13.

Woo, J., Wilsmann, J., Kang, D., 2010. Use Of As-Built Building Information Modeling, Construction Research Congress 1 538–547.

4th Construction Specialty Conference 4e Conférence spécialisée sur la construction

Montréal, Québec

May 29 to June 1, 2013 / 29 mai au 1 juin 2013

CON-135-1

BIM adoption and implementation within a mechanical contracting firm Erik A. Poirier

1, Sheryl Staub-French, PhD

2 and Daniel Forgues, PhD

3

1 PhD Candidate, Department of Construction Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure,

2 Professor, Department of Construction Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure,

3 Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Colombia,

Abstract: This paper presents the preliminary findings of a multi-phased research project which aims to study the adoption and implementation of building information modeling (BIM) within a small or medium enterprise (SME) from various perspectives (organizational and project supply chain) The objectives of the research are to: document the BIM adoption and implementation process for a specialty contractor in the AEC industry, evaluate the impact of this transformational process within the organization and across it’s project network and determine avenues of development for productivity gains using BIM and other IT tools. The paper focuses on three determinant axis of BIM deployment within a SME: (a) Driving BIM adoption throughout the organization; (b) Driving BIM implementation at the project network level from the organizational perspective, and (c) impact assessment. The preliminary findings point towards context as a modulator of the adoption and implementation process. It was found that by establishing a clear business strategy and setting measurable goals at the organizational level, these external factors could be mitigated and that the benefits of this process were scalable. Furthermore, it was found that a lack of strategy behind performance and impact assessment lead to difficulties in quantifying these benefits at the organizational level.

1 Introduction

The Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry is characterized by the vast amount of Small or Medium Enterprises (SME) which form its supply chain. These SMEs work in various fields and disciplines and come together to create temporary project networks. They will interact throughout a project’s lifecycle and exchange data, information and knowledge, with the common over-arching objective of delivering a product, meeting specific requirements commissioned by a client. Much has been said about the effectiveness and efficiency of this process, or lack thereof, and several avenues of research have been developed addressing the issues inherent to the AEC industry. Amidst these developments, the past decade has seen the emergence of Building Information Modeling (BIM), as a tool, a technology and a process, which is disrupting the current state of practice by pushing for the redefinition of interactions and processes throughout the industry. However, SMEs face considerable challenges in adapting themselves to these emerging tools, technologies and processes, be they financial, technological or organizational. In light of this, there is a general concern about the ability and willingness of SMEs to adopt and implement BIM which could seriously hinder the transition to a BIM-based project delivery process within the AECO industry. The aim of this paper is to present the preliminary findings of an on-going research project which is studying the BIM adoption and implementation process within a SME working in the mechanical contracting field. The paper focuses on three determinant axis of BIM deployment within a SME: (a) Driving BIM adoption throughout the organization; (b) Driving BIM implementation at the project network level from the organizational perspective and (c) performance assessment. An initial review of the literature indicates that these three axes, while being heavily interrelated, have not been studied in relation to one another. It is found that in order to fully understand the BIM adoption and implementation process, these three axis must be considered together. This research project attempts to bridge this gap

2

by studying the BIM adoption and implementation process from an organizational and project network perspective and assessing the process across these two axes. Furthermore, the literature has focused heavily on large-scale projects and has reported on larger firms which possess significant resources to invest and facilitate this transition towards BIM. This study is unique in that it provides insight into the transformational process across the organizational supply chain, from office to field for an SME. Preliminary findings suggest that contextual and environmental factors will modulate the BIM adoption and implementation process by dictating supply and demand. Organizational factors, such as management support and user buy-in, will be determinant in the depth and breadth of this process. Assessing the impact of this transformation requires that project data collection strategies be formalized at the source. It has become apparent that strategic planning at the organizational level is key to the success of the BIM adoption and implementation process.

2 Background

2.1 Building Information Modeling

A Building Information Model is defined as “[...] a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. As such it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle from inception onward (NIST, 2007) “Building Information Modeling is defined as “[...] a technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate, and analyze building models.” (Eastman et al., 2011) BIM is thus conceptualized to be both a technology and a process, which enables the digital construction of a building, or prototyping, prior to its physical construction. “A basic premise of BIM is collaboration by different stakeholders at different phases of the lifecycle of a facility to insert, extract, update, or modify information in the BIM to support and reflect the roles of that stakeholder.” (Eastman et al., 2011) While technology is driving the “BIM revolution”, it alone is not sufficient to induce the re-configuration of practice within the AEC industry needed to fully harness the potential benefits of BIM (Mihindu and Arayici, 2008). This re-configuration must happen at multiple levels. Hence, organizations must re-configure their business practices in order to successfully implement BIM, while project networks must adapt and align their project delivery processes to maximise the benefits of these emerging tools and technologies. (Taylor and Bernstein, 2009). Many enquiries into BIM adoption and implementation have been conducted over the past decade (eg. Bernstein and Pittman, 2004) These enquiries have determined barriers, benefits as well as factors which affect the adoption and implementation process from multiple perspectives. In addition, Some authors have looked into BIM implementation at specific stages, be it programming (Manning and Messner, 2008), design development (Ku et al., 2008) or construction documents (Leicht and Messner, 2008), while others have looked at the implementation process for specific actors within the project network. For example, Arayici et al. (2011) looked into the BIM adoption process within a SME working in the architecture domain. They determined inhibitors and strategies to facilitate the process. However, they did not delve into the effects of the BIM implementation process at the project network level. Kaner et al. (2008) looked into the BIM adoption and implementation process for 2 structural engineering firms designing with pre-cast concrete. The enquiry is at the organizational level and discusses the motivation and issues surrounding this process. While this paper offers great insight into the procedural ramifications of BIM adoption and implementation within engineering firms, the enquiry is limited to self-performed work of pre-cast concrete design and very little is discussed at the project network level. Staub-French and Khanzode (2007) provide a detailed approach to implementing both 3D and 4D modeling and coordination in a project network from a technological, organizational and procedural perspective. They go on to discuss the impact of this implementation on project performance and finally relate the benefits that come from the implementation of BIM in a project setting. However, the adoption process at the organizational level isn’t discussed. Khanzode (2010) goes on to present his Integrated, Virtual Design and Construction and Lean (IVL) method for coordination of MEP systems. The author presents the results of 4 case studies where either Virtual Design and Construction (VDC) or Lean methods (or a combination of both) was implemented for MEP coordination. The results are compelling in that the author provides empirical evidence of the significant benefits to be found in both increased productivity and reduction of waste. Here again, the implementation process is discussed at the project network level

3

and little is said about the implications of the adoption and implementation process at the organizational level. It becomes possible to view a trend in the literature whereby, BIM adoption and implementation has been discussed either at the organizational level or at the project network level; the crucial interface between both has been sparsely documented. A notable exception is Dossick and Neff (2010) who discuss the effects of BIM implementation on collaboration within project networks, specifically at the MEP coordination level. The authors find that project team members are faced with conflicting obligations, to personal scope, to project, and to their organization, due to a tightly coupled technological environment, induced by the use of BIM, within a mis-aligned, badly structured (termed “loosely coupled”) organizational environment. Hence, there is a need for a better alignment at the organizational level to overcome these issues of project network structure which can limit the effectiveness of BIM deployment with the project network. While this paper discusses the aforementioned issues, there is little attempt to enquire into how these issues could be resolved. It also focuses on a specific point in the supply chain, MEP coordination. The conclusions of this paper do point towards important factors to be taken into account at the BIM implementation stage. In essence, from an industry perspective, it can be recognized that BIM adoption and implementation has been largely carried out on an ad-hoc basis within organizations, relying on specific projects to further the process. It seems as though there is a lack of over-arching, strategic approach to BIM adoption and implementation within organizations which could possibly lead to sub-par performance.

2.2 Adoption and Implementation factors

As previously stated, many academic enquiries have been aimed at determining specific factors that drive or inhibit the adoption and implementation of BIM and on a larger scale IT in the AEC industry. Mitropoulos and Tatum (2000) identify four forces that drive innovation at the organizational level: competitive advantage, process problems, technological opportunity, and institutional requirements. The authors find that diffusion of innovation is a function of these four drivers rather than that of the technology itself. They also find that innovative behaviour is driven by industry conditions and organizational factors. Nikas et al. (2007) investigate drivers and antecedents that affect the adoption of collaboration technologies in the AEC industry. The authors make the distinction between drivers, internal, external factors and perceived benefits that drive the decision to adopt a new technology, and antecedents, the prerequisite resources required to adopt this new technology. While Nikas et al’s enquiry was at the organizational level, Taylor (2007) identifies a series of antecedents that affect the implementation of 3D CAD at the project network level. In this enquiry, antecedents are regarded more as variables rather than pre-existing conditions. The author goes on to develop a framework for 3D CAD implementation in design and construction networks. This framework relates the antecedents previously identified within the interorganizational interfaces created by the project network. These are identified as the technology interface, the organizational interface, the work interface and the regulative interface. Change management is identified as an intraorganizational antecedent. Stewart et al. (2004) identify barriers and coping strategies to IT implementation within the Australian AEC industry. These barriers and coping strategies are identified at the industry level, organization level and at the project level. The main take-away from this study is the perceived top-down effect of these factors from the industry level to the project level, thereby confirming the importance of the environment on the diffusion of innovation. Finally, Lehtinen (2012) identifies seven structurally relevant factors in BIM implementation. These barriers are (1) management support, (2) coordination and control, (3) learning and experience, (4) technology management, (5) communication, (6) motivation and (7) defining roles. These factors are identified within the context of vertical integration and it’s effect on diffusion of systemic innovation. They are relevant at multiple levels and scales of BIM adoption and implementation.

2.3 Performance measurement and assessment

The need for performance measurements is three-fold: First, measurement is required for consistent evaluation of performance. Second, measurement is required for improvement. Third, measurement is required for comparison to others in the same field (benchmarking) (Succar et al., 2012). In parallel, acquisition and diffusion of performance related data will make the “business case for BIM” and eliminate some uncertainty in light of the considerable investments required on the part of individual organizations

4

to adopt and implement BIM. Furthermore, performance is closely related to maturity, ie. the maturity level of an organization or a project network will influence the performance of the project. There is therefore a need to measure and assess both maturity and project performance. However, the operationalization of performance measurement is still lacking a solid foundation. As reported by Sebastian and van Berlo (2010) the “ (...) various existing BIM maturity assessment tools are not yet sufficiently ‘mature’ to serve as a standard benchmarking tool that is objective (i.e. perform qualitative and quantitative analyses), comprehensive (i.e. evaluates the model, modelling process and organization) and collective (i.e. commonly accepted in the construction industry).” (Sebastian and van Berlo, 2010) In other words, while data is being gathered on the use of BIM and the business case is being made, efforts to collect performance data are not uniform and replicable, ie. no acceptable model is universally accepted for the measurement of performance which may hinder objective data collection on a project scale. Typically, measurement is based on the ‘three traditional indicators of performance’ (Mohsini and Davidson, 1992), which are Cost, Schedule and Quality. In addition, many authors have looked into measuring performance within BIM environments (eg. Suermann, 2009) Succar et al. (2012) propose 5 components for the measurement of BIM performance. Coates et al. (2010) and Kunz and Fischer (2012) propose several KPIs to evaluate the BIM implementation process. Finally, Khanzode et al. (2008) specified and used a series of metrics in their evaluation of the Camino Medical Healthcare project to further showcase the benefits of implementing VDC in a project setting. Thus, while BIM is being adopted on a massive scale, and benefits of its implementation are being felt and somewhat measured, there still lacks a tangible framework that aims to validate and assess the overall impact of the process at the project network and organizational level.

3 Research methodology

This research project is part of a larger, over-arching research project which involves three pilot projects where BIM has been adopted within different organizations and implemented within several project network. These pilot projects concern different actors within the project network and different stages in the project lifecycle. Thus, each pilot project sets out to document the BIM adoption and implementation process for a given point in the supply chain during the project lifecycle and assess how this process is affecting project outcome. This particular project aims to study the BIM adoption and implementation process within a SME working in the mechanical contracting field. The project will study this process from both the organizational and project network perspective. The objectives of the research are the following:

To document the BIM adoption and implementation process for a specialty contractor in the AEC industry from an organizational and project network perspective;

To evaluate the impact of this transformational process within the organization and across it’s project network;

To determine avenues of development for productivity gains using BIM and other IT tools The research subject is a Vancouver, BC based mechanical contractor specializing in the commercial and institutional construction sectors (hereby called the firm). Founded in 2004, the focus of the firm has been design/build and design/assist projects in the Greater Vancouver area. The firm is made up of 50 employees, of whom 13 are office personnel (project managers, coordinators, estimators as well as administrative staff) and 37 are site personnel (superintendents, foremen, journeymen). Since their foundation, they have completed over 50 projects ranging from $100k to $12M. The research project employs a mixed-method longitudinal approach divided into 4 distinct stages similar to the action-research process. These stages are: (1) Benchmarking the current state of the organization, (2) Defining the desired state and metrics to evaluate the BIM implementation process and its impact, (3) Deployment and documentation of the BIM implementation process, and (4) Data analysis and feedback. Qualitative data has been collected through semi-structured interviews, in-situ observations, participation in project meetings and intra-firm meetings and through informal discussions. The interviews focused on top management personnel as well as Project Managers and the BIM Manager. Interviews were directed at gaining insight into the functioning of the firm, the BIM adoption process and how the firm was

5

accomplishing the transition towards BIM. Follow-up interviews are scheduled in the near future to discuss and document the evolution of the BIM implementation process. Quantitative data such as cost data, time sheets, models, plans and other project specific documents were supplied by the firm. This data was analyzed to review the quantitative impact on productivity. Validation is being ensured through triangulation of multiple data sources, such as interview analysis, observations and project data, across project settings. Moreover, specific performance metrics for impact assessment have been determined and are being measured across multiple projects to ensure generalizability of findings.

4 Driving BIM adoption throughout the organization

The initial decision to transition towards BIM came from the two founding principals of the firm. Seeing BIM as a way to “get ahead of the curve” and “gain a distinct competitive advantage over other mechanical contractors” the firm decided to invest in these new technologies. Along with a project manager for the firm, the top management founded a committee to study the adoption and implementation of BIM technologies and processes. The committee set clear objectives and goals and dictated the deployment plan. Strategically speaking, the adoption of BIM fit into the overall desire to streamline the self-performed work of the firm as well as create interference models with which they could coordinate their sub-trades and fabricators. This over-arching strategy considered three key elements: (1) Increase visibility and market-share within the mechanical contracting domain (2) Focus on design-build and design-assist type projects and (3) increase quality and productivity through modeling and pre-fabrication. Prior to the adoption of BIM, the only drafting that was performed by the firm was weld maps and the occasional as-built drawings at construction close-out. Therefore no drafting or modeling infrastructure really existed within the firm which means that no standards, library, etc. were in place. The firm was embarking on this endeavour with a blank slate when it comes to creating digital media. A hardware infrastructure was already in place within the office and the personnel were mainly trained on project management software. It is important to note, that due to the relatively small size of the firm, there was no IT department to rely upon and that the committee relied on employees’ initiatives. The move to BIM prompted the firm to hire a BIM manager that would look into the overall BIM implementation process as well as the strategic turn towards IT. It is the BIM manager who was mandated to perform the evaluation of different BIM software and make recommendations. This decision was a pivotal one due to subsequent issues with software choice such as training, interoperability and suitability. After more than a year of evaluation, the firm made a decision of implementing a specific software platform (hereby the modeling software) as the firm standard. In order to overcome the severe limitations of the modeling software in respect to fabrication level detailing, a second piece of software (hereby the detailing software) was introduced in late 2012. This software platform is geared towards fabrication and contains a 3rd party library of elements, which is managed externally. The introduction of a second piece of BIM software does introduce its set of issues, such as limited interoperability with the modeling software and introducing and/or reconfiguring workflows. Naturally, the issues with hiring and training personnel capable of working with these tools also represent a major hurdle in the implementation of this software. In terms of personnel and training, the firm’s short and mid term goals are to train two to three more project managers/coordinators on the modeling and detailing software platforms. In terms of field personnel, the aim of the firm is to educate and inform their personnel on the essence of BIM, the possibilities it introduces and the way it will affect their work. Thus, while field personnel are not being trained to use the modeling/computer based tools, they are being informed on what the technology and the shift in processes means for them. The interviewees stated that as a whole, the firm has displayed enthusiasm at the prospect of working with BIM and being a leader in that field. The firm has been reinforcing their commitment to BIM and attempting to maintain enthusiasm and buy-in from all of their personnel by involving them in the overall adoption process. However, as the firm moves towards other avenues such as pre-fabrication and use of robotic stations and tablets, the adoption process will shift from the office to the field. Again, the strategy is to implement these technologies on a small scale and slowly train the personnel to use them. The main issue though will be to determine who will be trained and at what time.

6

5 Driving BIM implementation throughout the project life-cycle

The BIM implementation process is an evolutionary one whereby capabilities are incrementally developed as projects move forward and new technologies or tools are introduced. The firm uses each project as “triggers” to develop a skill set, implement a new technology or process or invest in other capabilities in parallel to BIM, such as pre-fabrication or laser scanning. See table 1 for an outline of BIM implementation process through project execution. The main issue with this project-based implementation

is to maintain the alignment between the expectations towards BIM, the intent with the process and it’s execution. Setting a clear vision in line with an over-arching organizational strategy is seen as paramount for a successful implementation process. The project based evolution was set along two concurrent project streams: Project stream #1: District energy projects including fabrication and installation of Energy Transfer Stations (ETS) and Project stream #2: Traditional building mechanical systems including HVAC, fire protection, plumbing, etc.

5.1 Project stream #1: District energy projects including fabrication and installation of Energy Transfer Stations (ETS)

Project stream #1 consists in the fabrication, installation and retrofit of district energy systems. Most of this work is done within existing buildings and has to contend with very limited space. While this is a

Table 1 – Outline of BIM implementation process through project execution

7

challenge, this also offers the opportunity to perform a laser scan of the space and model the ETS and the pipe runs prior to fabrication and installation, thus greatly reducing rework in the field. To date, the firm has been creating the models from 2D contractual drawings submitted by the consulting firms (fig. 1), and inserting and validating them within the scanned model (fig. 2). The firm are currently implementing the detailing software within this stream in order to pre-fabricate most of the elements off-site. They often acts as prime contractor in this stream which offers a distinct advantage in that it offers much more control on the whole construction process. This type of project lends itself better to a ‘lonely’ setting, whereas the information and modeling required is limited to the work performed by the firm. The most important adjustment is ensuring that the information produced in the office gets to the field and distributed to the field workers in an efficient manner. Where traditionally, the site foreman would have dissected and dispatched the various pieces of the contractual drawings to specific workers through face-to-face discussion and the use of hand sketches, now the information is being produced in the office. The project team thus has to establish a communication protocol through which plans are analyzed, models built and validated and finally documentation produced and distributed efficiently.

5.2 Project stream #2: Traditional building mechanical systems

Project stream #2 consists in the traditional project execution at the mechanical contractor level. Typically the sheet metal contractor, the fire protection contractor, pipe insulation and refrigeration contractor are contracted while plumbing, HVAC piping and equipment installation are self-performed work. This project stream will be procured through various routes, mainly traditional design-bid-build and design-assist/design-build. To date, the firm has experienced little involvement from the project network at the modeling level. Project coordination is still done through 2D drawings, with the exception of certain consultant firms who have produced the odd BIM model. The major difficulty faced in this project setting is the general reluctance by project teams to move towards BIM. The firm has had to work in a lonely setting, developing their own models and holding all their sub-contractors accountable to it. This is possible due to the contractual set-up with these sub-contractors. However, the firm has also modeled elements which are outside their scope of work, such as cable trays. During project #2, when presented with the model, the electrical contractor refused to comply with the installation strategy set-forth by the firm which caused serious problems as ceiling space was at a premium for this project. The lack of control over other disciplines could be viewed as a lack of contractual control and/or a basic lack of good will. Even through a more integrative delivery method, there are still no provisions in the contract that prevented siloed work and individualistic attitudes. In the case of project #2, while BIM was Fig. 2 – Design validation though laser

scanning

Fig. 1 – From 2D to reality

8

beneficial to a certain extent, it is possible to see that the contractual considerations were not providing the necessary environment for collaboration.

Constructability review, design validation and visualization are the most prominent benefits throughout both project streams. For example, in project #2, ceiling space was at a premium. Once the initial model was created by the firm, they noticed that many services indicated in the 2D drawings produced by the consultants would simply not fit. Therefore, having to redesign several elements, they ultimately asked the design team to consider modifying certain non-mechanical elements to suit. The design team, presented with the irrefutable visual evidence that the current structure and mechanical scheme could not work together, re-designed the problematic areas to offer the clearance required. This was done during the design stage and was possible due to the firm’s modeling effort as well as their involvement at the design stage. The impact of this is difficult to quantify, but needless to say, had the issue not been raised during the design stage, the project could have been compromised. Another unquantifiable benefit revealed by this project is the added influence of the firm within the project team. By taking leadership of the project, the firm has offered increased value to the client as well as to the general contractor by mitigating costly issues upstream. For SMEs, being able to offer a quality service and product is indispensable for continued success.

6 Discussion

Throughout this research project, several factors have been identified as having an impact on the organizational BIM adoption and implementation process. While many factors align themselves with those discussed previously (eg. Mitropulos and Tatum, 2000; Lehtinen, 2012) others have emerged which are specific to the reality of the sub-contractor. Management support and User buy-in The firm’s management played an integral part in the successful adoption of BIM through total support of the process. It was thus easier for the personnel involved to identify and allocate the necessary resources for the adoption and implementation process as there was tremendous buy-in from the decision makers. The vision for BIM within the firm came from them and was broadcasted to the firm’s employees. There was a clear message throughout the firm that BIM was the way forward. In contrast, top management delegated alot of the decision making to the personnel that would be using BIM, notably choosing the software packages and exploring other avenues such as robotic stations and laser scanning. This has for effect that users are empowered and integrated into the overall BIM deployment process. Context will modulate the rate of diffusion The business context has largely influenced the rate of BIM implementation within the firm. The role of the firm in the supply chain dictates that they have little influence on the formation of the project network which will influence the deployment of BIM. In parallel, the procurement method will have the same effect. To date, the firm has only been capable of deploying BIM in a ‘lonely’ setting where all modeling work was performed in-house, limiting the potential impact of BIM. While the firm is actively seeking projects which will deploy a more collaborative BIM setting, there seems to be an overall lack of such projects being commissioned either because clients and owners are going the more traditional route or because of legal and procurement barriers that hinder the flow of information across the supply chain (ie. projects being designed in BIM but being tendered in 2D, paper–based sets). Therefore, the possibility of furthering the BIM implementation process has been limited by the actual opportunity to implement BIM, which leads to the “triggered” implementation process. Agility is key Business agility is becoming synonymous with diffusion of innovation (eg. Baskerville et al., 2005). The organization’s preparedness to deploy BIM will be influenced by the personnel that is available at the required time, their level of expertise and their capacity to execute the project requirements. Therefore the organization must demonstrate incredible agility to navigate and choose which projects to get involved in and to what extent, least they become overwhelmed and cannot meet demand. To date, the firm has not been faced with this challenge due to a lower demand for BIM, however, in the near future, and with the

9

firm’s growing expertise and reputation, this question of preparedness and agility will become an issue. Getting BIM to the Field: Modifying work and information flows At the forefront of the procedural ramifications of BIM implementation for a speciality contractor is the redefinition of information and workflows between office and field personnel. As previously stated, project execution was traditionally resolved in the field leading to the know inadequacies of the AEC industry. The introduction of BIM has shifted this execution and resolution to the office. While information is now becoming much more precise and reliable, the expertise of the field workers is lacking in the resolution process. Therefore a communication protocol to transfer and diffuse information is a must in order to encourage some feedback flows between the office personnel and the field personnel, notably the BIM coordinator and the site foremen. In order to put this protocol in place, there must be a clear understanding of what information is needed downstream and how the information must be presented. The firm is developing this protocol through experimentation, however a more formal approach would assuredly yield better results. Coordination and control Lehtinen (2012) discusses the pros and cons of vertical integration (VI) on the factors influencing BIM implementation, namely coordination and control of the process. He determines that a distinct advantage of VI is the easier management of changing liability and contractual issues whereby a vertically integrated firm will have no need to negotiate contracts for the work it performs itself. It will also offer more stable relationships. While in the case of a mechanical contractor, vertical integration of the entire supply chain pertaining to its scope of work (ie, design and construction of mechanical systems) is a possibility, for SMEs it may be a far-fetched reality. However, it would be interesting to look into the level of integration which could be achieved reasonably such as including either the electrical scope of work or offering consulting services. An alternative to this is to review the contractual set-ups between speciality contractors to address the issues of authority and responsibility. Measuring performance The assessment process is characterized by the need for a rigorous data collection method. Clear and consistent metrics must be targeted with a particular understanding of what the analysis of the collected data will yield. The firm has a history of tracking cost components and maintaining a cost database which is used for estimating. A centralized project management software has been implemented, which can create detailed reports of a variety of information pertaining to specific data sets. The firm has the foundations upon which to build an efficient benchmarking and performance assessment process. However, certain challenges were encountered when it came time to analyse the collected data. For both project streams, a lack of precise data points hindered a thorough performance analysis. In addition, the thoroughness with which the data was collected was, at certain times, questionable. Also, no post-mortem reviews of projects are performed causing a lot of valuable data to be lost. Some recommendations can therefore be made. First, like any implementation effort, there must be support from the top management and buy-in from the users. The goals and objective of this performance measurement must be communicated to employees to ensure their buy-in, as the collection of data will mainly be performed by them. Secondly, the correct data must be captured. Issues like vague cost codes and time sheets, incorrect data entry, etc. must be addressed by modifying what is captured and how it is captured. Lastly, the targeted metrics can vary in their degree of subjectivity along a scale whose poles range from perceived impacts defined through qualitative metrics to measured impact defined through quantitative metrics. This will impact the data collection method which will need to be tailored to the type of assessment performed.

7 Conclusion

This paper has presented the preliminary results of a multi-phased research project which aims to study the adoption and implementation of building information modeling (BIM) within a small or medium enterprise (SME) from various perspectives (organizational and project supply chain). This study distinguishes itself due to the fact that it looks into the impact of the implementation process at both the organizational level and at the project network level from the perspective of a speciality contractor in the

10

AEC industry. Though on-going, initial analysis points towards a series of factors that will impact the adoption and implementation process. Several of these factors reflect findings covered in other works while others have been sparsely reported on. Further work will be done to refine these factors and a round of follow up interviews is slated in order to further validate the findings. Additional work is set to be done on formalizing the performance measurement piece and implementing it in a real-world setting. Finally, the authors are extremely grateful for the involvement of the firm in this project. The study was funded by the National Research Counsel – Industrial Research Program (NRC-IRAP) and the Centre d’études et de recherches pour l’avancement de la construction au Québec (CERACQ).

8 References

ARAYICI, Y., COATES, P., KOSKELA, L., KAGIOGLOU, M., USHER, C. & O'REILLY, K. 2011. BIM adoption and implementation for architectural practices Structural Survey. , 29, pp. 7-25. .

BASKERVILLE, R., MATHIASSEN, L. & PRIES-HEJE, J. 2005. Agility in Fours: IT Diffusion, IT Infrastructures, IT Development, and Business. In: BASKERVILLE, R., MATHIASSEN, L., PRIES-HEJE, J. & DEGROSS, J. (eds.) Business Agility and Information Technology Diffusion. Springer US.

BERNSTEIN, P. G. & PITTMAN, J. H. 2004. Barriers to the Adoption of Building Information Modeling in the Building Industry, . Autodesk Building Solutions (white paper).

COATES, P., ARAYICI, Y., KOSKELA, K., KAGIOGLOU, M., USHER, C. & O'REILLY, K. 2010. The key performance indicators of the BIM implementation process The International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering , . Nothingham, UK.

DOSSICK, C. S. & NEFF, G. 2010. Organizational Divisions in BIM-Enabled Commercial Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136, 459-467.

EASTMAN, C. M., TEICHOLZ, P., SACKS, R. & LISTON, K. 2011. BIM handbook : a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.

KANER, I., SACKS, R., KASSIAN, W. & QUITT, T. 2008. Case studies of BIM adoption for precast concrete design by mid-sized structural engineering firms. ITcon.

KHANZODE, A. 2010. An Integrated, Virtual Design and Construction and Lean (IVL) Method for Coordination of MEP. CIFE Technical Report #TR187. Stanford University.

KHANZODE, A., FISCHER, M. & REED, D. 2008. Benefits and lessons learned of implementing building virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies for coordination of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems on a large healthcare project [Online]. Available: http://itcon.org/cgi-bin/works/AdvancedSearchForm&search=/Show?

KU, K., POLLALIS, S., FISCHER, M. & SHELDEN, D. 2008. 3D model-based collaboration in design development and construction of complex shaped buildings [Online]. Available: http://www.itcon.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?

KUNZ, J. & FISCHER, M. 2012. Virtual Design and Construction: Themes, Case Studies and Implementation Suggestions.

LEHTINEN, T. 2012. Boundaries Matter – The Pros and Cons of Vertical Integration in BIM Implementation. In: FRICK, J. & LAUGEN, B. (eds.) Advances in Production Management Systems. Value Networks: Innovation, Technologies, and Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

LEICHT, R. M. & MESSNER, J. 2008. Moving toward an intelligent shop modeling process. ITCon, 13, 286-302. MANNING, R. & MESSNER, J. 2008. Case studies in BIM implementation for programming of healthcare facilities.

ITcon. MIHINDU, S. & ARAYICI, Y. Digital Construction through BIM Systems will Drive the Re-engineering of Construction

Business Practices. Visualisation, 2008 International Conference, 9-11 July 2008 2008. 29-34. MITROPOULOS, P. & TATUM, C. 2000. Forces Driving Adoption of New Information Technologies. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 126, 340-348. MOHSINI, R. & DAVIDSON, C. H. 1992. Determinants of performance in the traditional building process.

Construction Management and Economics, 10, 343-359. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BUILDING SCIENCE 2007. National building information modeling standard— version

1.0 — part 1: overview, principles and methodologies. NIKAS, A., POULYMENAKOU, A. & KRIARIS, P. 2007. Investigating antecedents and drivers affecting the adoption

of collaboration technologies in the construction industry. Automation in Construction, 16, 632-641. SEBASTIAN, R. & VAN BERLO, L. 2010. Tool for Benchmarking BIM Performance of Design, Engineering and

Construction Firms in The Netherlands. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6, 254-263. STAUB-FRENCH, S. & KHANZODE, A. 2007. 3D and 4D modeling for design and construction coordination: issues

and lessons learned [Online]. Available: http://www.itcon.org/cgi-bin/works/Show? STEWART, R. A., MOHAMED, S. & M., M. 2004. An empirical investigation into the link between information

technology implementation barriers and coping strategies in the Australian construction industry. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 4, pp.155 - 171.

SUCCAR, B., SHER, W. & WILLIAMS, A. 2012. Measuring BIM performance: Five metrics. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8, 120-142.

SUERMANN, P. 2009. Evaluating The Impact Of Building Information Modeling (BIM) On Construction. Dissertation for the degree of PhD, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

TAYLOR, J. E. 2007. Antecedents of Successful Three-Dimensional Computer-Aided Design Implementation in Design and Construction Networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133, 993-1002.

TAYLOR, J. E. & BERNSTEIN, P. G. 2009. Paradigm Trajectories of Building Information Modeling Practice in Project Networks. Journal of Management in Engineering, 25, 69-76.

 

CONSTRUCTION AND IT 

CEFRIO is a centre for the promotion of research and innovation based on information and communication technologies (ICT) in organizations. It includes over 150 academic, industrial, and governmental members, as well as 80 associated and visiting researchers. Its mission is to help transform Quebec into a digital society by using technologies to leverage social and organizational innovation. In its capacity as a centre of liaison and transfer, CEFRIO conducts projects of research-experimentation, surveys, and strategic oversight of the adoption of ICTs in Quebec and Canada. These projects affect all sectors of the economy, both private and public. CEFRIO activities are financed as follows: 67 % by its projects 33 % by the Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la science et de la technologie, its principal financial partner.

 www.cefrio.qc.ca – info@cefrio.qc.ca 

 

  

In Québec 888, Saint-Jean Street Suite 575 Québec (Québec) G1R 5H6 Canada Telephone: 418 523-3746 Fax: 418 523-2329

In Montréal 550, Sherbrooke Street West Suite 1770, West Tower Montréal (Québec) H3A 1B9 Canada Telephone: 514 840-1245 Fax: 514 840-1275