Ever since the BIM wave struck the industry’s shores, there have been two intriguingly related discussions covering its drivers and its deliverables. The first discussion (or open question) is which industry stakeholder stands to benefit most from the wide deployment of object-based tools, procedures and protocols? Are facility owners the ones who will receive all the benefits[1]? Or is it the contractors/builders who will be reaping most of the rewards? What about architects, engineers and other designers; aren’t they the ones to really benefit from BIM?
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The second discussion is which stakeholder is or should be leading [2] the industry-wide implementation drive? Should the architect lead by being the first to invest in relevant technologies and to develop collaboration workflows? Or, should the client drive construction innovation [3] through defined protocols or performance metrics? But isn’t it a fact that specialty sub-contractors (ducting specialists, steel detailers, etc…) were the first– for varied reasons – to jump onto the ‘elemental 3D’ train?
The jury is still out on both questions and there are a lot of facts mixed with an equal measure of theories (including conspiracy-flavoured ones) floating around. This post is not about analysing ‘who should benefit’, ‘how should the benefits be distributed’ or ‘who should lead’ but it is more about a set of personal observations over a period of many years [4].
These observations are NOT based on rigorous research and are thus exploratory until proven right or wrong through formal investigations [5]. However, it may be beneficial to expose these observations hoping to encourage others to provide their own. To that end, I’ve compiled my readings, thoughts [6] and practical experiences into the below image:
Figure 1. Industry BIM Leadership vs. Expected BIM Benefits v1.0
The above image explores the relationship between two variables: industry BIM LEADERSHIP and expected BIM BENEFITS. Industry stakeholders are shown clustered around their respective Project Lifecycle Phase [7]: Design [D], Construction [C] and Operation [O]. Until a more formal investigation is conducted to confirm (or refute) the above, it is intriguing to me how those who stand to benefit the most are not the same as those who are actually leading the pack.
[1] The benefits of using BIM concepts and technologies have been sufficiently documented by countless others; there’s no need to repeat them here. For a taste of these benefits, please check here.
[2] BIM leadership is a loose term describing actions taken (not words) including investment in BIM software, development of workflow protocols, engaging with others for the purposes of model-based collaboration, plus many other factors.
[3] Refer to Clients Driving Construction Innovation, a CRC-CI publication.
[4] For those concerned about context, the Visual Knowledge Model (VKM) provided above is based on informal yet informed ‘reflective learning’ (Derek, Svetlana, Janice, Frank, & Christophe, 2008) of the BIM domain within the Australian market from 2001-2010.
[5] The VKM may (or may not) be descriptive or predicative of other markets and durations.
[6] This VKM was first labelled BIM Innovation vs. BIM Benefits. Credit for some of the underlying concepts goes to Dr Guillermo Aranda-Mena (RMIT University) and from him to Jon Anderson (Hive Engineering).
[7] To understand Project Lifecycle Phases, please refer to BIM Episode 10.
Comments 6
Great post..
I find it curious that you have engineers in the lower left quadrant. As a sometimes-hydraulic engineer, I see a lot of benefit using “smart” hydraulic analysis tools like the Hydraflow and HEC-RAS extensions of Civil 3D. It has long been a bugbear of mine having to draw pipes, structures and cross-sections in CAD and hydraulic analysis software (ditto traffic analysis software). Using smart tools to eliminate that step reduces a lot of effort in the to-and-fro of the design process. On the (civil) projects I’ve designed with BIM tools, we have been able to refine the design and test “what if” scenarios that never would’ve been possible within the budget. While we may not see the benefit of less design cost, we are passing a benefit of less construction or operation cost up the lifecycle.
I agree with you that engineers can pass a lot of benefit up the construction supply chain when they use ‘smart tools’ as you put it. However, I’m not sure that they stand to benefit themselves at the same rate as owners/operators or construction companies. Let’s take two examples at the far ends of the above diagram: architects and owners.
On one hand, architects have invested the most energy in implementing BIM tools and concepts but, in my view, stand to reap the least benefits out of that investment in the long run. Sure, they would benefit themselves in the short-medium term but they’ll eventually pass all the hard-earned value to others when BIM becomes mainstream and competition kicks in.
On the other hand, owners have so far invested the least energy in exploring BIM yet stand to benefit the most from it…Just think of the enormous value of linking object-based models to FM, GIS, BMS or business logic databases.
The point really is, stakeholders belonging to the Operation Cluster [O] stand to benefit more than those in the Construction Cluster [C] who in turn benefit more than those in the Design Cluster [D]. However, when you observe who is currently leading the BIM adoption/investment, you’ll find the reverse order.
Owners are ultimately paying for designers to expend the energy in transforming to BIM because overhead costs are built into design fees. Owners of non-BIM projects are sharing in the cost of BIM adoption and subsidizing owners of BIM projects. Obviously the private sector has a lot more flexibility in how owners are billed, but the government is the largest investor in infrastructure and buildings and has very strict rules for billing.
Costs and benefits are not, of course, the same thing. Reusing the example you provided, there’s an important difference between the cost of BIM, the price paid by the Owner to the Designer for a BIM service/product, and the benefit from BIM, the value of this BIM service/product to the Owner irrespective of its price. The diagram above discusses benefits not costs.
However, I partly agree with the spirit of your comment…If the Owner is paying extra for receiving a BIM-enabled service (e.g. a coordinated model – less RFIs) , then you’re absolutely right and the Owner is actually subsidizing the Designer’s transformation to BIM. However, if the Owner is receiving extra value at practically the same pre-BIM price, then this argument does not stand.
From the perspective of private consulting, when we talk about benefits, we mean our bottom line. We want our training/R&D/hardware costs to fall within the limits applicable to our Audited Overhead Rate, and our OAR to stay within the caps applied by our government clients. Most of our government Design-Bid-Build projects are cost + fee and our motivation is therefore to keep working until the hours are used up, and then stop. It is not a good pricing model for delivering the best service, but it does mean that all our owners are paying for our transformation to BIM, even if it is happening slowly and few clients are benefiting.
We do see a benefit from fewer RFIs, but only because these often happen when the budget’s gone or the project’s closed, so they erode margin or are done on donated time. If we managed our projects better, fewer RFIs would be a cost! Aside from the “bottom line,” the main benefit is increased job satisfaction, chiefly through less frustration and delivering a better product. As a design engineer, I value these soft benefits higher than a business manager would. A business manager may be concerned that we blow all our hours refining our design, or even worse, get the design done before we’ve used up our hours.