By Jay Dougherty, LEED AP
Navigant Consulting
Chances are most contractors have had an experience similar to the following at some point during the last three years. A long-time owner-client tells them, "BIM is a requirement on this job." The contractor responds, truthfully, "That’s great. We now have a few BIM projects under our belt and we’re getting better. We’re seeing real efficiency and productivity gains." Then, wanting to add value, they pose a few questions to the owner. "Do you mean BIM for design? BIM for construction? BIM for transition to facilities? All or some of those?" The owner responds, "Yes, all of those - especially BIM for FM." This prompts the contractor to ask the million dollar question, "Have your facilities maintenance, operations, and asset management teams reviewed the systems and processes they have in place, decided where they want to go, and clearly articulated those needs into specific deliverable requirements for BIM turnover at closeout?" At worst, the contractor is met with silence. At best, they hear a well-meaning response calling on a combination of broad concepts, tools, and emerging industry standards, " ... COBie ... IFC ... AIA© E202 ... ConsensusDOCS© 301 ... BIM Execution Plan ..." but one that is light on details.
This article will highlight key considerations and suggest basic action items that contractors can take to assist owners with articulating scalable, flexible, and realistic BIM-FM requirements.
Filling out Forms in Triplicate: Some Research into the Potential of BIM-FM
In 2004, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued a report entitled, Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the US Capital Facilities Industry.1 The report examined the siloed and patchy nature of information exchange, management, and access in the design-construct-operate (DCO) lifecycle and then quantified the resultant lost/waste costs. Interoperability costs were defined, essentially, by comparing the current fragmented business activities and costs of the DCO lifecycle against a hypothetical scenario wherein information exchange, management and access was fluid, and most significantly, where information was entered into electronic systems once, and only once. Without oversimplifying, the underlying question of the report was, "How much is data re-entry costing the industry?"
The NIST report quantified an estimated $15.8 billion annually in total waste costs directly attributed to the fragmented nature of information exchange, management, and access in the DCO. Disaggregated, annual stakeholder shares were allocated as follows: Architects and Engineers - $1.2B, General Contractors - $1.8B, Specialty Contractors - $2.2B and, Owners - $10.6B. Given that the owner’s $10.6B share represents roughly two-thirds of the estimated total annual cost of interoperability, there is little doubt as to the motive behind owners pushing hard for BIM-FM.
While the NIST report does not offer explicit projections as to how much BIM-FM transitions might deliver in cost savings, it surely passes the test for the "reasonable man on the street" wanting to consider the scale of waste and inefficiency currently facing the entire DCO lifecycle, particularly the problems facing owners. Furthermore, emanating as it does from the public sector, and with enough time in the rear-view mirror for critical evaluation, the report appears reliable and unbiased. If any criticism can be levied, perhaps it’s a little short in its $15.8B annual projection.
Reducing the Owners’ $10.6 Billion – Where to Start?
Not even the most ardent BIM technophile would suggest that implementing BIM tools, virtual design and construction (VDC) techniques and Lean processes on all projects will automatically reduce the owners’ entire $10.6B problem to zero. However, most in the industry seem to agree that BIM/VDC/Lean presents a logical opportunity to reduce at least some portion of that waste cost over time. The question for owners then becomes how to implement a plan to track and measure a BIM-FM investment in order to clearly understand exactly where and how much of their share of the $10.6B they can reclaim.
As has become popular in the BIM-FM literature, such a plan must, "begin with the end in mind." In determining the, "end" of any BIM-FM plan, it will be helpful for owners to first take stock of their existing procedures, systems, and people, and then conclude where BIM project data can either support those systems, or recognize gaps where a different approach may be in order. Below are some possible suggested questions and tasks that contractors can utilize in assisting owners with articulating scalable, flexible, and realistic BIM-FM requirements.
Defining Asset Management Goals and Objectives
Successful BIM-FM transitions require an owner to be extremely specific in articulating their asset management goals and objectives – before uttering even one specific BIM technology, VDC technique, or nascent industry standard/protocol. Therefore, long before providing detail requirements for BIM deliverables, or timelines related to hand-over protocols, an owner must be able to explain to their project teams what is important to them in the long run.
The following are six questions a contractor might then ask an owner in beginning the BIM-FM process:
1) From a cross-departmental stand-point, do the real estate, facilities, and accounting departments have a cohesive vision of asset-related desired levels of service and key performance indicators?
2) Are there policies in place for cost-effective, prioritized, and data supported spending recommendations?
3) How are current asset inventory records maintained within sensible thresholds?
4) What is the procedure for modeling asset deterioration curves and determining associated renewal and repair costs?
5) Are financial modeling tools in place for forecasting renewal and repair cost schedules and running budget scenarios?
6) Depending on the size and scale of the project, will evaluation reports be produced for five, 10 and 30-year time horizons under current policies and procedures?
In the mission to realize cost savings from BIM-FM transitions, answering these questions is crucial.
What Systems Does the Owner Already Have in Place?
Part and parcel to excavating an owner’s asset management goals and objectives is an in-depth understanding of his or her existing systems. All owners, regardless of size, market sector, or building type, have some system or tools already in place to manage their facility maintenance, operations, and assets. Some use highly customized software platforms, others use simple Excel® spreadsheets and Outlook® calendar reminders. Understanding those systems and tools at a detailed level is critical to a meaningful BIM–FM transition. Owners cannot mandate and gather BIM project data without understanding when, where and how their existing internal systems will process the information that a project collects.
Accordingly, there is any number of questions a contractor might pose to an owner who has mandated BIM-FM. For example, does the owner require a specific project management and/or document management system? Will that system be the single source of truth for all project information, or run in some form of parallel with the designer’s and contractor’s independent systems? Does the owner-mandated system remain in play (and to what degree) once the project is complete and transitioned to operations? Does the vendor for any such application have a position on BIM, or proven example of custom integration?
As a project nears completion, has the commissioning agent been engaged in terms of BIM? Do their workflows and/or field tools acknowledge data links back to BIM data or geometry? Likewise, does the owner have a separate system for maintaining as-built information at close-out? Is that an in-house system, or part of an owner-controlled service from an outside vendor? Is that system capable of storing, viewing and retrieving BIM data? Does it need to be? Is there overlap between the owner’s project management software and the as-built documentation platform?
Once into operations and maintenance, does the owner utilize a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS)? What are the inputs of critical importance to the CMMS? Do emerging industry protocols suit all of the owner’s end-user needs? Does the owner’s CMMS vendor have a position on industry protocols with a proven example of import integration? Similarly, does the owner’s finance and accounting department see any benefit from project BIM data to support depreciation systems and analyses?
Mapping the Existing Systems
The above represents a small sampling of potential questions a contractor might ask an owner in preparing a BIM-FM plan that begins with the end in mind. And, all before uttering any one specific BIM software, VDC process, or emerging industry protocol.
With research in hand, it’s then critical that the contractor condense the findings into the fewest number of reports possible. With attention spans at an all-time low and information dumps at an all-time high, the challenge is to map the owner’s existing systems and procedures on one 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of paper. A visual mapping that all project participants can easily recall from memory serves two primary goals. First, it enables efficient collective thinking about data collection that would support existing systems. Second, it visually identifies gaps where a different approach to the status quo may be in order.
Conclusion
The 2004 NIST report on interoperability estimates that the siloed and patchy nature of information exchange in the DCO lifecycle costs the industry $15.8B annually, $10.6B of which is borne solely by owners. BIM-FM presents a logical opportunity to reduce at least some portion of those costs. Presently, many owners have difficulty articulating scalable, flexible, and realistic BIM-FM requirements. Contractors can provide value-added services by assisting owners with defining their asset management goals and objectives. Part of this process requires clearly identifying the owners’ existing systems and then preparing a visually compelling mapping of those systems. Ideally, this system research and mapping should occur before mandating any specific BIM-FM requirements.
Jay Dougherty, LEED AP is an associate director in Navigant Consulting’s Global Construction Practice where he leads the BIM Advisory Services Group. Mr. Dougherty has extensive experience with BIM and integrated project delivery which he uses to assist contractors, owners, developers, architects, engineers, and municipal agencies in the analysis and resolution of complex building design, construction and management issues. He is an Autodesk® Revit Implementation Certified Expert and approved instructor for the AGC’s National BIM Curriculum. Mr. Dougherty began his design and construction career working in a stair shop.
1 US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration; National Institute of Standards and Technology - GCR 04-867