BIM4Real Summary: A Workshop Looking at Project Delivery Under BIM Level 2 Maturity Requirements

BIM4Real Summary
A workshop looking at project delivery under BIM Level 2 Maturity Requirements
This document outlines the outcomes of the event held in June 2013. Including the identified
challenges and consensus points for project kick-off, design delivery and construction and operation.
Contents
BIM4Real Summary................................................................................................................................. 0
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 1
What Is This Document? ......................................................................................................................... 2
Document Scope .......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Authors and Contributors.......................................................................................................................................... 2
Event Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3
What was BIM4Real? .................................................................................................................................................... 3
What Was It About?...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Discussion Areas............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Session 1: Project Kick-Off ...................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Consensus ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Suggestions .................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Main Challenge Areas.................................................................................................................................................. 8
Session 2: Design Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 9
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Consensus ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Suggestions .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Main Challenge Areas................................................................................................................................................ 11
Session 3: Construction and Operation ................................................................................................ 13
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 13
Consensus ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Suggestions .................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Main Challenge Areas................................................................................................................................................ 15
Appendix: Element Ownership ............................................................................................................. 16
Appendix: Attendee List........................................................................................................................ 19
Document History ................................................................................................................................. 20
Page 1
THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

IT IS NOT NESSEARILY REPRESENATIVE OF THE AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS VIEW. NO COPYRIGHT, CAN BE FREELY DISTRUBTED
What Is This Document?
This document has been produced to outline the outcomes
of the BIM4Real event. It is hoped that it will assist in the
understanding of what challenges the UK Construction
industry currently face. This document particularly focuses
on the delivery of BIM Maturity Level 2 projects as stipulated
by the UK Government by the year 2016 and currently by
some private clients.
Document Scope
This document does not seek to define terms such as
Building Information Modelling or BIM Maturity Level 2. Nor does it seek to define the intention of
protocol documents. It is intended to be read by those familiar already with these terms and
documents. If not familiar, documents such as PAS1192-2:2013, BS1192:2007 and the AEC
Protocols make for an excellent starting point. Websites owned by the BIM Task Groups, the CIC,
RIBA, BIMTalk (CIBSE), the Landscape Institute and the BSRIA contain a wealth of information.
This document is an event summary document. It records what was discussed and stated at
the actual event by those in attendance. It should not be read as an approved best practice
or protocol document. Nor does it have any legal standing.
Authors and Contributors

This document was written using the notes primarily taken by the committee and chair people as a
result of the excellent discussion in which the entire events audience (see appendix) participated.
This document was authored and contributed to by;
Main Author Rob Clark Consultant at Excitech Ltd
BIM4Real Committee Graham Stewart Associate and Head of BIM for Structures
at Ramboll
Ray Purvis Associate & CAD/BIM Manager at Atkins
BIM4Real Chair Person Carl Collins CAD Manager at Arup Associates

Casey Rutland Associate Director at Arup Associates
Mark Stodgell IT Director at Pozzoni
Paul Shillcock Principal Consultant at Operam
Rob Jackson Associate at Bond Bryan Architects
Page 2

Event Summary
What was BIM4Real?
A Workshop
BIM4Real was a workshop held on June 19th 2013 at Ramboll’s offices in central London. Around
60 people attended and were split into 5 different tables. Each table was chaired. These chair
people both guided the discussion and summarised each session.
BIM4Real was supported by Excitech Ltd, Ramboll and

Atkins.
Who Attended?
The event was attended by some of the most technically
competent people from the UK Construction industry.
These represented everyone from sole traders, through
small enterprises to large consultancies. In this mix were
structural engineers, architects, building services engineers,
managers, contractors, clients and consultants. The BIM4Real event was an invite only event;
with a selection committee ensuring a diverse range of people were in attendance.
What Was It About?

Project Delivery
The workshop focused on the delivery of a sample project, in this case a Hardware Store in the city
of Shrewsbury in the UK. The project and client were completely fictional.
The Employers Information Requirements

The fictional client was represented as a reasonably well informed employer whom had produced
an Employer Information Requirement document. This stated the employers BIM Maturity Level 2
requirements. These requirements included the need to design and construct employers facility
in a quality assured collaborative manner. In this case the PAS1192-2:2013 specification was
referenced to as a process to follow. This was intended to reduce waste by delivering a more
efficient build process. There was also a documented requirement to handover asset information
including specification and operational data.
Project Team
Those attending were asked to act like they were a project team. In three separate stages, Project
Kick-Off, Design Delivery and Construction and Operation they had to discuss and, if possible,
define how they would act to deliver the Employers Information Requirements. This document
outlines the outcomes from these discussions and outputs from them. It focuses on where
consensus was reached and suggestions made and where there was confusion and thus
challenges to resolve.
Had To Be Real
Page 3
Everybody was asked to relate the delivery of this project to known ways of working. This included
limitations in organisational capability and understood process as well as software and hardware

capability. To assist in this, each group had access to a significant amount of information including
protocol documents such as PAS1192:2 and laptops with software and example models.
Discussion Areas
The chair people were asked to target outcomes in the following areas in each of the three stages;
Project Kick-Off
1. Employers Information Requirements Response - Understanding of how the team
would go about setting up the project in response to the Employers requests
2. Delivery Method - The team’s delivery method and how they would document this. Also
who would document this?
3. Roles - Understanding of roles within the team. Who would be responsible for what?
4. CDE- How a common data environment should be established and managed.
Design Delivery
1. Who Does What? Looking at particular design scenarios. What is the best method for the
team to deal with them in a collaborative way while meeting the employer requirements?
2. Traditional vs. New Process - Looking at the requirements of BIM Maturity Level 2, what
is new from what we currently do? What can be tweaked to meet requirement? What just
works already?
3. Coordinated Design - How do we model to ensure the entire project requirement,
including construction and operation are met?
4. Information Exchange - What is the best controlled method to distribute this information
to enable collaboration?
Construction and Operation

1. Bridging The Gap - Ensuring effective handover of design space BIM’s to the contractors
and building operators.
2. Interference Checking - Defining responsibility for model interference checking,
reporting and resolution management
3. Quantification - Defining workflow for the costing and quantification of a project.
4. Construction Management - Integration methodologies.
Page 4

Session 1: Project Kick-Off
Executive Summary
This session achieved a number of consensus points, but also it was clear that on issues of roles,
responsibilities and infrastructure set up, like common data environments, significant confusion
remains.
It was pleasing that when asked more than half of the room are using or
adopting BS1192:2007 workflows. This will mean a greater level of ability
to work collaboratively through standardising the transmittal of
documentation.
There seemed to be general acceptance that the new PAS1192-2:2013

Information Management protocol contained useful processes for
establishing model driven collaborative projects. In particular, the
suggested use of the Employer Information Requirement document was
seen as worthwhile and useful. While there was debate as to how the
response should actually be shown, there was also acceptance of the
need to deliver a single BIM execution plan. In the discussion, some very
useful comments came out in regards to what should be in the Employers Information
Requirements and BIM Execution Plan documents.
Interestingly, there was little worry in the room with regards to liability and insurance. It was felt
that project indemnity covers these requirements. There was some good discussion around model
ownership and the contractual requirements covering this. It was felt by many that caution was
needed in how the model licence is communicated. There seemed to be good consensus that the
client would be able to fully utilise the model for their requirements providing it was for the
project asset alone.
There was still significant confusion over roles and responsibilities, including the understanding of
the Information Manager and the Task Team Managers. Further how the BIM Managers and BIM
Coordinators roles fitted into this, if at all. There were also question marks over roles such as the
production of the Federated Model. There seems to be clear need for much greater clarity here.
This was again discussed in Session 3, Construction and Operation.
Also, the common data environment, a requirement of BS1192:2007 seemed to still be causing
some significant confusion, especially on the subject of who would be responsible for setting it up
and most importantly; administering it.
There are a number of continuing question marks over specification systems such as Uniclass 2.0
and New Rules of Measurement (NRM) as well as information registers such as COBie, which need
to be addressed.
Page 5

Some of the points presented here are in context to the Employers Information Requirement
document presented for the fictional Shrewsbury Hardware Store project at the event. This
document can be downloaded from the BIM4Real website, www.bim4real.co.uk
Consensus
Process
1. BS1192:2007 Workflows - In excess of half of the room (show of hands) are actively or
currently are adopting BS1192:2007 workflows.
The Employers Information Requirements and the BIM Execution Plan

2. Worthwhile - The Employers Information Requirements document is worthwhile and
good starting point to a project briefing.
3. Plain English - The Employers Information Requirements must be written in plain English
and contain questions to qualify ability against the requirement.
4. Accessible - The accepted format of Employers Information Requirements documents
should be easy to follow, understandable and scalable for clients of projects of any
complexity or size.
5. FM Teams Involvement - The Facilities Management team should be involved in the
initial project set up.
6. BIM Execution Plan - The Employers Information Requirements document should
naturally inform the contents of the BIM Execution Plan
7. Single BIM Execution Plan - The team’s response to the Employers Information
Requirements Document should be a single BIM Execution Plan.
Roles and Responsibilities

8. BIM Manager - This role is defined as an office management role with tasks including
giving advice on best practice, provision of content, assessing capability and training and
reviewing progress in relation to the project goals.
Model Ownership
9. Liability Through Project Indemnity - The liability of the project should be managed
through project indemnity. Mervyn Richards went on to explain later that insurance
companies are happy with the CIC advice.
Suggestions
Ownership
Please note the Ownership section is presented as understood by the attendees of the
conference only. It does not form any form of contractual or legal advice.
1. Model Ownership - At the event, it was suggested a number of times that the “client owns
the model”. Although there was some objection to this statement, including, “the client
does not own the model, they are licenced to use it for the intended purpose, and the
ownership resides with the author. If you buy a book, you do not own the rights to that
Page 6
book, you only own it to read and that is the licence you enter into. To state that the client
owns the model is to imply that they can use it for whatever purpose they like, which they

cannot.” It was pointed out the new CIC BIM Protocol does cover this in Clause 6, however
it was felt by some that the current wording would need to be revisited. Ultimately, there
seemed to be consensus that the client would be able to unhindered utilise the model for
operational purposes for the project asset. However there is concern how this particular
point is conveyed. Typically this concern lies in implying that the model could be utilised
on other similar construction projects the client undertakes.
Process
2. Employers Information Requirements / BIM Execution Plan / Master Information
Delivery Plan - “This should be consolidated into a single document” Although it was
also questioned how this would work in practice, “the Employers Information
Requirements are written by the client, BIM Execution Plan by the 'Team'. The Master
Information Delivery Plan is sometimes a joint effort between the client and the team”
The Employers Information Requirements and the BIM Execution Plan

3. Timeframe - The Employer Information Requirements “should contain time frames for
delivery”
4. More Information - The Employers Information Requirements “should contain more
information regarding a client’s deliverables” and “why” they need certain information.
5. Product Register - Product preferences should be included.
6. Sustainability Information - The Employers Information Requirements should contain
sustainability aspirations of the client.
7. Information Delivery Plan - The Employers Information Requirements should contain a
plan of “who will supply what”
8. Standard Clauses - “In a normal project, this happens then, that happens then” which
gives you a clear opportunity to change these to show how this differs from a normal
project.
9. Digital Plan of Work - The Employers Information Requirements should make clear what
asset data is required at what stage. For example “I want these 10 fields of COBie data at
data drop 1, and these 5 at Data Drop 2”
Asset Information
10. Make COBie friendly - COBie data needs a “client friendly interface”

11. Information Manager - Some defined this as a client representative that will check
models, equivalent to Project Quantity Surveyor (PSQ). It was noted that in 3.1 of the CPIx
Post Contract Execution Plan this role is to “enforce the Project BIM Standard” and ensure
delivery of the Information requested in the Employers Information Requirements”. It was
suggested by some that the key words are “ensure delivery”.
12. “Roles Are Not People” - It was suggested one of the main confusion areas in roles and
responsibilities is that the roles are not defined by who does them, but the tasks
themselves. Therefore in some instances the same person can wear many hats, whereas in
other instances more than one person may be required to fill a role on a project.
Page 7

Main Challenge Areas
1. Roles - There is still a significant amount of confusion about what these roles are and how
they are defined. Who does what? The industry seems to be seeking clarification here,
particularly for the Information Manager and Task Team Manager. It was suggested by
some that these roles are however clearly explained, for example the Information Manager
is listed in the CIC BIM Protocol
2. Task Team Manager Push Back - This is a role in PAS1192:2013 process. Many believing
the new title is not required and that it is a BIM Coordinators or Model Managers role.
Some suggested that this was one of Data Validation, and that this person(s) would be
responsible for ensuring models are shared effectively.
3. Federated Model Responsibility - Lack of clarity on who is responsible for production of
federated models. It was suggested the main contractor should be by some. This was
discussed in greater detail in Session 3, Construction and Operation.
4. CDE Responsibility - “CDE should be provided by the main contractor”, “CDE should be
hosted by the team”, “We took it that we would host the CDE”. General confusion on who
is responsible and what it needs to look like. Although, equally it was suggested this is no
different to existing process and that there is no “one fits all” solution.
Standards and Protocols

5. Industry Foundation Class - “Its equivalent to print portals, you don’t know what is going
to be spat out”. It was stated that IFCs are improving “monthly” and that the authoring
and importing software is more likely to blame than anything, however there continues to
be a trust issue. However equally others have suggested there is nothing wrong with the
IFC format and that we should be utilising it as an interoperability standard. It was also
suggested the onus was on everybody to push software vendors for improvements.
6. Uniclass 2.0 “Aspirational” - “They are releasing all of the tables except the ones you
use”. You need to understand its limits. “The BIM Execution Plan should not be afraid to
challenge the use of Uniclass”.
7. Frequency of Information Exchange - There was significant debate on when information
should be transferred and in what manner. It was felt that daily had its advantages in
collaborative workflow, especially when working in the same company. Some even live
sync models. However some felt once of week reduced the risk of abortive work.
Page 8

Session 2: Design Delivery
Executive Summary
This session focused on the actual authoring and delivery of a design
Building Information Model. This model would usually contain
information from the Architectural, Building Services, Structural, Civil,
Infrastructure and Landscaping disciplines, and perhaps the suppliers.
The session focused on how efficiently this could be delivered,
including how we could collaboratively design shared elements
including stairs, openings, building service connections and civil
coordination.
There was no consensus when it came to specific known issues of

model element collaboration. There is no commonly understood
process, be it formal or informal. Nor was it suggested that there was any kind of industry level
protocol to address this. This should be a concern. It could lead to wastage, duplication of effort,
design and coordination errors as well as cause problems with outputs such as COBie and
Federated Models.
It was suggested that one of the primary reasons for this challenge was the limitation of software,
especially across software platforms and a limitation in the separated manner that we produce
models, some suggesting cloud solutions being the
answer. It was suggested that element
collaboration in this way was in fact moving more
towards BIM Maturity Level 3, although this
statement was contested. There also appears to be
an issue of trust, which likely needs to be addressed
with agreed quality control measures. This trust
issues appear understandable as the session also
revealed that there were few controls in place other
than peer checking for model validation prior to
formal issue.
There was consensus of how this should be handled on a project basis. This was to hold Design
Review meetings including perhaps on-going meetings throughout the life cycle of the design.
Who should attend these meeting was a subject of discussion with differing opinions.
Level of Definition (LOD) remains a big talking point with very little consensus here. Again, this will
almost certainly lead to inefficient modelling. Many people simply do not feel we have the right
guidance in the UK presently. Some suggested that the American E202 document was a
preferable guide. The comment was made that the current Level of Definition understanding
needs to be reviewed per project with the client. For example, some projects will call for a high
LOD input at conceptual stages for items say in building services were as say, structures will be still
Page 9
at early LOD levels. It was felt that guidance was currently lacking here.

Consensus
Process
1. Design Review Meetings - It is very difficult to appreciate everybody’s challenges.
Everybody “must get into the same room” and discuss delivery of the project. It was also
suggested that meetings should continue as “mini live meetings” even changing models
live in this meeting if people can drive the tools fast enough.
2. Contractor and QS Involvement - See notes from Session 3, Construction and Operation.
Collaborative Process
3. Site Coordination Responsibility At Outset - While it was accepted that the
responsibility would be project specific, it was agreed that site coordination has to occur.
This should be agreed at the outset of a project. It should be agreed clearly who is
responsible and how this should be set up.
Suggestions
Process
1. Design Review Meetings Should Be Technical - It was suggested that the wrong people
are often attending the design review meetings for the project set up. It was a comment
that attendees should be the BIM Coordinators who have a technical understanding of
their organisations capabilities including their software and design capability as well as
process including information management and resource. They can convey that to the
others in the design team, who in turn need to do the same. It was suggested that often
the people attending are not technical and may agree (or not agree) to tasks that they
assume are achievable, leading to risk. However it was also suggested that the meeting
should be more focused on talking about design. “If we take away the BIM process, you
are still left with the Design Review meeting.” It was suggested that while we need to
appreciate some intricacies, that we should “not forget that we are delivering buildings
here. This is not all about software - that's a distraction at the moment.”
Ownership
2. Volume Strategy Needed - This includes a clear understanding of who owns what in
terms of space (or volume) within a building, “particularly the MEP”. The process for this
would likely be the building services define their spaces and pass it to the Architects.
3. LOD Plain Language Answers - There needs to be plain language answers to LOD
questions posed in the Employers Information Requirements. For example, what data you
understand will be delivered next to the employers expectations at each data drop stage.
4. Matrix of Responsibilities - Responsibilities established in the Design Review meetings
should be regularly reviewed and kept up to date in a Matrix of Responsibility.
Page 10
5. Model Validation - Currently peer review only are acceptable for some. This includes
validating the model against the 2D deliverables. For some it was 2 levels, first being a
software model check, checking of the elements, such as a column being vertical and
spliced correctly and then an information check of data within those elements, such a
column size, material, and cost. Some suggested that software such as Solibri Model
Checker should be utilised.

1. Who Owns The Stairs? Object Ownership - There continues to be little understanding of
how to share multidiscipline elements within different models effectively without
reverting to wasteful duplication, which could also lead to error and lack of coordination.
It was suggested that the BIM Execution Plan has a part to play, this was illustrated by the
comment that we need to “Understand the usage expectations of the model before we
start, as part of the BIM Execution Plan. This includes factors that affect ownership
including project type, stage, object type, contract type, client type and supply chain. “ It
was stated that not having a clear idea on this could cause issues including inefficient
wasteful workflow and duplication including in exports such as IFC/NWD and COBie.
There was no industry protocol suggested to deal with this issue, and no guidance either
formal or informal. It was suggested regardless of our aspirations to reduce waste here,
other than getting everybody into a room to “thrash it out” on each project there is no
scope for a solution.
Please see appendix for notes on suggested solutions to the scenarios stated at BIM4Real
2. Object Ownership - Software Limitation - It was suggested that at least part of the
reason for this is the lack of ability was in fact due to software limitations. The issue has a
little more clarity when a single software platform is present, leading to the debate if it is
reasonable to stipulate a software package on a project. One client stated this is exactly
what they do currently. It was suggested that some of these issues would be resolved by
moving to shared cloud hosted modelling solutions which would allow for a more
effective workflow when it came to sharing elements in models.
3. Level 3? - Some questioned if in fact being able to establish shared element workflow was
in fact BIM Maturity Level 3. This was contested.
4. Workflow Bottlenecks - There are concerns regarding “people having to sit on their
hands” in some collaborative workflows while they wait for the release of the information.
Communication and protocols regarding the frequency and manner of model exchange
seem to be a clear priority in efficient workflow.
5. Trust - The issue of trust of information remains an issue. “Our Civil’s guys will not trust
any information”, “Our structural guys do not trust the architects setting out”. Clear and
agreed quality control procedures seem absolutely essential for the workflows to work.

6. Additional Coordination Responsibilities - “It didn’t feel my team were comfortable with
some of the additional requirements”. Collaborative BIM requires coordinated models.
There was no consensus of who would naturally be responsible for this and indeed there
were comments that people would be “uncomfortable” with the requirement to maintain
a coordinated model with the other disciplines.
Page 11
7. Confusion on Interference Checking Responsibility - It was debated if interference

checking was required at all. The suggestion was that if standards and protocols are
followed that it would not be a requirement. This was felt naive by some. If it is required
where it comes to federated model checking, it was unclear whose responsibility it is and
what process should be used.
Standards and Protocols

8. Level of Definition Protocol No Consensus - The protocols included in PAS1192-2 were
not accepted by the group, and became branded as too generic. Indeed protocols
produced by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) E202 document were preferable for
some as they list LOD by discipline objects. “LOD’s need to be derived from client
requirement at each stage for each model system”
Page 12

Session 3: Construction and Operation
Executive Summary
This session focused on the process of handing over the project to the contractors. The
contractors in turn taking the information forward and the building operators using the
information developed in the design and build stages.
As with session 2, there was a significant debate over

whether interference and coordination checking
needed to occur at all. Some suggesting that if we
could get stage 2, Design Delivery correct then it
wouldn’t be.
There was a lack of clarity over the process for

developing federated design data and who would be
responsible for this, with some suggesting it was the
contractors role, other the design leads. It did
however seem to be consensus that the resulting models and information should be federated in
neutral and open formats. In the case of a graphical model, Autodesk Navisworks (NWD) and
Industry Foundation Class (IFC) were repeatedly suggested as appropriate formats.
It was repeatedly stated that the Design Models cannot be expected to immediately transfer to the
contractor requirements. Design models are simply not created with these requirements in mind.
The example of un-spliced columns was used to illustrate this. It was suggested that the
contractors needed to be involved in the Design meetings to ensure that their requirements could
be correctly communicated and understood.
For the same reason, it was suggested that the QS or cost consultant role needs to be involved at
an earlier stage of design to ensure that information they require can be extracted. This would
have to include an understanding of supplier capability and who was participating in the
modelling process, as well as what elements
suppliers would model.
A general theme here seems to be that that all

parties need to be involved at an earlier stage,
including assigning clear responsibilities of the
team in order to meet over requirements for this
to effectively work. This seems to significantly
differ from traditional project setup.
With regard to handing over the model to the building operators, there are concerns regarding the
integrity of graphical data. It was repeatedly pointed that a design model is neither complete nor
as built and this needs to be considered and understood by the client. There is agreement to the
Page 13
principle of data drops however this event demonstrated that current guidance has not been
sufficient for this activity to be understood.

Consensus
Handover Design to Contractor
1. Interference Checking - Should be fully completed prior to handover. “If you are
discovering clashes on site, you have done
something wrong”.
2. Design With Tolerance In Mind - It should be
accepted that the BIM will not fully represent the as
built state as people naturally design within
tolerances. Interference checking in the design
stages need to account for this.
3. Quantity Surveyors in Design Meetings - The QS’s
should attend the design team meetings especially
project kick-off.

4. Earlier Project Planning - Contractors should not
plan the construction of a project at handover stage.
Handover Design to Building Operator

5. Editable Format - Data must be handed over in
editable format if this is specified by the client. It is
very important that what we handover is of some use.
This is because the building operator must keep this
information over a long building operational life cycle.
Suggestions
1. Never Delete Something - Change It - It was suggested that a “Golden rule” is that
elements must keep a truly unique identification throughout the project. This is achieved
by ensuring elements in models are never deleted and replaced, but only revised. This was
as it is “very important for interference checking and quantification requirements”.
However it was also suggested that really quantification tools need to be more
sophisticated and that it was not in fact practical to advise users not to delete elements.
2. Federated Model in BIM Execution Plan - BIM Execution Plan should make clear level of
“completeness” to be expected in the federated model. This should state on a project
specific basis what information will be modelled and what suppliers are participating.
3. Size of Federated Model - It was suggested that model size would naturally be an issue
with federated models. It was suggested that the IFC or Autodesk Navisworks format
Page 14
should be utilised for this process and not authoring packages like Graphisoft ArchiCAD or
Autodesk Revit. It was suggested this would also resolve the issue of accessibility.

4. Clean Model - It was suggested that there needs to be a clean-up process including
removal for example of demolished objects.
5. Need To Establish Bi-Directional Link Between Contractors and Design - It was
suggested that it would be very useful, in order to achieve an as-built if process could be
established were the contractor could effectively issue changes to the federated design
model in order that we can handover a more useful BIM at the end of the design and build.
6. Health and Safety Data - It was suggested that elements should have H&S warnings
attached as standard process.
7. Design Models and 4D - It was suggested that design models should be built with
construction sequencing in mind. This requires the contractor to be available in the
Design Meetings. However, this was also objected too as it was not seen as a Design role.
Handover Design to Building Operator

8. Editable Format - “We wouldn’t give them an Autodesk Revit RVT file as it’s a “chocolate
tea pot” in the operational - due to close format. It was suggested that the handover files
must be open in nature, for example Industry Foundation Class (IFC).
9. Graphical Data - “Accurate graphical representation of the building” - “What it is, where it
is” - It was suggested that a graphical model should naturally form part of the handover
package to the building operator, not just asset information. It was suggested that it was
important to link the information to this model.
10. Cost Data Should Be Outside Of The Model - The model should not include the costing
information; this should be linked but separate.

1. Federated Model Role - There was no consensus on who is responsible for the
development of federated models, and what they should look like. Some suggested it was
the role of the contractor, some the Design Lead. It was noted by some that PAS1192-
2:2013 specifically states it is the Design Lead.
2. Data Drops - While the idea of data drops, such as those defined in Soft Landings worked
in principle, there seems to be little consensus on how this would shape up on an average
project.
3. Quantification Trust - Due to design tolerances, some building elements not being
physically modelled including some sub-trade elements and so it is difficult to include
these in quantification schedules directly from models. Also measurement rules are
different than absolute and so the QS needs to be made aware of what is not there. This
mean while we can take out quantities with much more assurance than before, it will not
be 100% accurate. However it was suggested that the QS or cost consultant should
receive the model.
4. Site Management Model - Design models are not a lot of use on site and while it may be
used as a basis will likely need to be remodelled. It was also suggested that if the
contractor was brought into the Design Meeting at the start then models may be friendlier
to site requirements. “We would draw an 80 storey column, you can’t get that on the back
Page 15
of the lorry!”

Appendix: Element Ownership
The tables in session 2, Design Delivery were asked to define how they would resolve the following
collaboration issues within models;
1. Stairs
2. Floors and Walls (finishes)
3. Structural Openings
4. Building Services Equipment
5. Civil Coordination with Building
6. Infrastructure Development
7. Utility Information Development
8. Landscape Architecture Coordination.
Here are the raw notes as taken immediately in the discussion;
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

Stair
Both Arch & struct, Depends upon: Slightly easier – Generated/owned Architect should
but own different swapping out – by A with input provide space for
parts. A owns Project type things arrive in from the SE stair.
balustrade and Project stage boxes Floor finish not Specification
aesthetic, S owns Object type modelled. dictates model
the physical Contract type author.
properties. Client type Collaboration
Are you working Stair by engineer.
Ownership sharing with a Should who meets
is desirable but manufacturer the regs change.
may not actually supply chain?
be viable.
All of which can be
Part based stair identified within
with Copy/monitor the BIM Execution
can potentially Plan and controlled
work. as necessary.
For larger projects

with multiple stairs,
we will take the
initial assumption
that the Arch has
control, but may
relinquish to Struct
Eng, or share
ownership.
Floors and Walls
Ownership of Build up of wall is Generated/owned Finishes by the
components can sit collaborative by SE – Revit architect.
with Facade different people ? Structures
Page 16
designer, say, with Keep Them Finishes not

the component separate - 2 modelled
embedded into the models. Finishes should be

Curtain Wall part of the room
system. No technology data
solution – analysis
Separate elements software needs
for finishes. different things
from the model.
Record the Different people
ownership, making need different
the BIM Execution things from the
Plan a live model.
document. Software not there
yet.
Finish could be a
property of the Multiple skins, a
Space, rather than solution ? creates
the bounding more problems
walls. than they solve.
Seeing other
peoples problems.
Model structure
then others model
plasterboard ? -
copy monitor.
Architects
modelling plaster
Software not good

enough yet.
If work around,
creating more work
, more co-
ordination….
Export to COBie /
IFC duplicates ?
Structural Openings
For Slabs, there us Generally, model Separate Lintels should be
a specific size that penetrations below models…. And co- modelled by the
Struct can accept 150mm not ordinate them - engineer.
as a penetration modelled but if it communication Secondary
without has an effect on Dual Host ??? copy steelwork should
consideration. reinforcement it monitor. be modelled. Hot
needs to be not replace generic and cold. Engineer
More of an issue is known. with manufacturers or fabricator?
structural openings just tag with the
through walls, can Scenario specific. actual data.
generate 10x 150mm
secondary penetrations?
steelwork.
Always owned by
structures, who
Page 17
must be consulted
by those requiring
the penetration.

Building Services Equipment
Roof Equipment Unintended Volumes required Lighting –
always owned by consequences IES to be determined modelled by
MEP. Ceiling analysis cant cope as early as possible engineer
equipment is often Over specification Above ground /
modelled twice. based legacy below ground.
And this is often experience
not properly co-
ordinated.
Shared design
intent is the
important driver;
ownership needs
to be managed
sensibly.
Civil
We understand the Start with the project dependent Building Outline DWG into
existing condition, basics. Get the – depends on needed Navisworks
but have a bad setting out point contract Orientation and
interface with the sorted. responsibilities level
designed building. Is it an Island or a 3
Shared file with car car park.
Possible to “Flatten S/O point, levels
the Earth” to and grids.
design buildings
and then place the File type Civil3d?
building back into DWG?
a curved Earth.
3D dwg with some
depth data for u/g
services
Infrastructure Development
Requires proper Start with OS, Depends on the Based on the
Northings and replace with topo. project, the bigger Architect
Eastings to sit a the project more
building inside a Civils 3D goes into Civils
terrain.
Utility Information
Scope of service is GIS would be nice Not trusted Below ground
not clear. but not always MEP to define survey
necessary.. incoming services
Landscape Architecture
Perimeter edge Mostly 2d cad, very Generally CAD – Landscape
around building? limited only emerging architect
involvement with now. Terrain done responsible as they
BIM from LI on civil 3d specify.
Page 18

Appendix: Attendee List
Details are as entered on the BIM4Real website during registration.
Aleksandra Debowska bdp Architect

Andrew Handley Reconfigured Ltd. Director
Andrew Victory RTKL Associate- Office BIM Manager
Bill Holden Atkins CAD Manager
Bruce Jackson Jackson and sons Construction Manager
Carl Collins Arup Associates CAD Manager
Casey Rutland Arup Associates Associate Director
Cathy Chapman KSS Project Architect
Chris Senior Content Studio Limited Director
Christopher Powell Powell Design & Engineering Ltd Bim Co-ordinator
Daniel Pitkin AluK (GB) Limited Specification Manager / BIM
Coordinator
Darren Snook Waterman Group Senior Technician
Darryl Store PRP Architects BIM Manager
David Nottingham Wolverhampton University Researcher
David Rose EPR Architects Ltd BIM CAD Manager
David Wood Chapman Taylor Practice CAD / BIM Manager
Duncan Reed thinkBIM Steering Group Member
Emma Hooper Metz Architects BIM Technologist
Gareth Spencer cadline Applications Engineer
Gary Scott RG Group BIM Manager
Giancarlo Gaglione Morgan Lovell Head of Innovation
Graham H Stewart Ramboll Technical Associate/Head of BIM -
Structures
Graham Woodcock Buro Happold Associate/BIM Manager
James Blood metz Architects Ltd BIM Manager
James Savage Pozzoni BIM Manager
Jenny Durie Atkins Graduate Structural Engineer
John Allan-Jones Atkins CAD & BIM Development Lead
John Williams Excitech Head of Professional Services
Julian Jameson Gatwick BIM Coordinator
Kan Wong Mott MacDonald BIM Manager
Kevin Fielding AEW Architects BIM Coordinator
Kevin Hims Opus International Consultants Divisional Director
(UK) Ltd
Lewis Wenman Pascal & Watson Associate BIM Manager
Mark Eggelton AWE CAD Strategy & Integration
Manager
Mark Stodgell Pozzoni IT Director
Martin Coyne KPF BIM Manager
Matthew McCarter TfL CAD Technician
Mark Stodgell MR1 Consulting Ltd Director/Consultant
Michael Bartyzel Buro Happold BIM Manager
Michael Hudson Flanagan Lawrence BIM Manager
Mike Hacker Waterman CAD Development Manager
Mervyn Richards MR1 Consulting Ltd Director/Consultant
Mobeen Minai Atkins Bim Coordinator
Page 19
Olly Thomas The Design Buro Architects BIM Manager

Paul Oakley Oakley Cad Services Ltd Director
Paul Shillcock Operam Principal Consultant
Paul Thorpe Sir Robert McAlpine BIM Coordinator
Rahul Shah Brookfield Multiplex BIM/VDC Manager
Ray Purvis Atkins Associate & CAD/BIM Manager
Rebecca De Cicco DMA Associate Director
Rick Cooper UNIT4 (Business Collaborator) BIM Consultant
Rob Clark Excitech Consultant
Rob Galvin Ramboll Senior Technician
Rob Jackson Bond Bryan Architects Associate
Shilpa Mistry Atkins Senior Structural Technician & BIM
Coordinator
Stephen Hall Wallace Whittle Cad Team leader
Steve Rudge Excitech Senior BIM Consultant
Teck Khiew Atkins Graduate Civil Engineer
Toby Sortain Sir Robert McAlpine BIM Manager
Tony Bassett Ramboll UK Director
Document History
Revision Date By Note

0.1 (Draft) 24/06/2013 Rob Clark Issued to chairs and
committee as draft for
comment
0.2 (Final Comment) 26/06/2013 Rob Clark Revisions as per chair
people comments.
0.3 29/06/2013 Rob Clark Minor amendments
1.0 01/07/2013 Rob Clark Issued onto BIM4Real
website
Page 20


BIM4Real Summary: A Workshop Looking at Project Delivery Under BIM Level 2 Maturity Requirements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIM4Real Summary: A Workshop Looking at Project Delivery Under BIM Level 2 Maturity Requirements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIM4Real Summary

A workshop looking at project delivery under BIM Level 2 Maturity Requirements

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Authors and Contributors

This document was authored and contributed to by;

Main Author Rob Clark Consultant at Excitech Ltd

BIM4Real Chair Person Carl Collins CAD Manager at Arup Associates

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

BIM4Real was supported by Excitech Ltd, Ramboll and

What Was It About?

The Employers Information Requirements

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Construction and Operation

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

There seemed to be general acceptance that the new PAS1192-2:2013

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

The Employers Information Requirements and the BIM Execution Plan

Roles and Responsibilities

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

The Employers Information Requirements and the BIM Execution Plan

Roles and Responsibilities

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Standards and Protocols

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

There was no consensus when it came to specific known issues of

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Main Challenge Areas

Roles and Responsibilities

7. Confusion on Interference Checking Responsibility - It was debated if interference

Standards and Protocols

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

As with session 2, there was a significant debate over

There was a lack of clarity over the process for

A general theme here seems to be that that all

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Handover Design to Contractor

Handover Design to Building Operator

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Handover Design to Building Operator

Main Challenge Areas

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Here are the raw notes as taken immediately in the discussion;

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

For larger projects

designer, say, with Keep Them Finishes not

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Software not good

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Aleksandra Debowska bdp Architect

Olly Thomas The Design Buro Architects BIM Manager

Revision Date By Note

THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS THE OUTPUT OF A GROUP DISCUSSION.

You might also like