POLICY AND PRINCIPLESWhat do you think and where to from here31 March 2017

[BIM]> Event Hosts

Toby MapleQLD & WA BIM Lead, AECOMtoby.maple@aecom.com

Andrew CurthoysDirector, Infrastructure Policy, DILGPandrew.curthoys@dilgp.qld.gov.au

Have your Say> https://haveyoursay.dilgp.qld.gov.au/bimDeadline closes 21 April 2017

> Thoughts from the workshopAn interactive session was undertaken where attendees used their mobile device to vote on particular topics relating to the Draft Policy. The group was predominantly made up of Consulting Services practitioners, who historically have led the adoption of BIM.

> About the Participants

> Did the policy hit the mark?“Needs more ‘how’ to support the ‘what,’ plus what is it up against?”

“Needs further clarity on what ‘IT’ is and alignment to industry reform”

“Rigid specification of NATSPEC”

“Needs a cleaner, more defined scope”

“Needs clarity around application to local councils”

> Are the timeframes achievable?Attendees were asked at the start of the session if they think the timeframes in the State Infrastructure Plan 2016 (http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/sip/sip-part-b.pdf) for the Implementation of BIM are achievable?

Buildings by 2020 Infrastructure by 2023

- Don’t call it BIM (Building Information Modelling) as it alienates certain stakeholders. Information Modelling/Management was a key theme throughout the session. Some suggestions included Building an Information Model, Better Information Management, Digital Engineering, amongst others.

- Clients are the key. There still seems to be low certainty of the “why and how” BIM should be procured by a client, including government. Benefits realisation needs to be articulated on both sides of asset creation and operations rather than “I’ll have some BIM thanks”.

- Defining the client/operator Information requirements at the outset was a key consideration that still was not done well with 42% saying “it could be done better”

- Procurement model/s to be used, client uses of the project information and integration with asset management systems were seen as critical elements to get right at the beginning of a project, this would provide tangible benefits from BIM that could be shared as “good news” stories.

- When asked if BIM can work on small project, attendees said it works well across all projects scales but is dependent on the skills of the team.

- Skills and capability was of concern for most attendees. The projects that work well typically have more “BIM experienced staff” (i.e. a number of previous projects completed). Capability in regional and rural areas plus Small to Medium Enterprises was also raised as an issue. How do we get BIM to work for all of Queensland, not just larger or more experienced firms?

- Refurbishment projects were also noted as requiring more effort “up front” to model the existing conditions. Something that was not always reflected well in fee structures.

- Initial Pilot projects where seen as the way to go, however they might not show a good return on investment initially if the teams are new to BIM. Agency implementation plans should consider how benefits will be realised and reported in line with skills and capability.

- It was also noted that Pilots would focus too much on a particular project rather than upskilling industry/government as a whole and potentially could take too long. The UK and Scottish approach of dispersing the KPI measurement across many projects, across the whole asset lifecycle could work well in QLD to get a well-rounded view in the shortest possible timeframe.

- In relation to BIM Execution Plans (BEP), NATSPEC BIM Guide was seen as a good reference but was outdated and needed a refresh by 72% of attendees, this was echoed by 22% of people saying they use their own BEP.

- Open Standards was also a key theme. It was noted that the IFC format (produced by buildingSMART1) was still in development for infrastructure and more support for IFC was needed by users, software vendors and clients. The UK Government has contributed to the development of IFC and it was suggested Australia should also invest.

> How can Industry and Government Work Together?

Attendees put forward many suggestions for how industry and government could work together to accelerate the adoption to improve the policy and wide scale adoption within all QLD Government agencies.

1 http://buildingsmart.org.au/

> What’s the ‘Secret Sauce?’

Successful BIM

Project

Collaboration, Communication & Commitment

Understanding Future Value

Clearly defined Change

Management Process

Lifecycle Approach

Useable client-focused

outcomes

Right people and teams

Knowing the end-game

Understanding WHY we want

BIM

> Would you like to be actively involved?

2 http://3dqld.org/3 http://bim-level2.org/en/standards/ 4 http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030333753 5 https://www.iso.org/standard/55088.html 6 http://www.seqcode.com.au/standards/

7 http://www.engicom.com.au/adac 8 http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/bim4-steering-group/ 9 http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/our-work/sft-build/construction-pro-curement-review/building-information-modelling-bim/working-groups1/

> Where to from here?Attendees noted that government and industry partnerships already exist to solve some of these complex issues. 3D QLD2 was highlighted as a good reference where the spatial community has been working with Government to redefine how spatial information will be used in the years to come.

It was noted that references such as the UK PAS 11923

documents, BS 1192 and the upcoming ISO release of these documents as ISO196504 which links the use of BIM during construction phases with ISO 550005 and asset management principals are gaining more adoption on QLD and Australian projects by Clients. Any future implementation approach should consider these emerging standards.

An Approach?Although there have been many ‘high level’ initiatives over the past 10 years, there has been little guidance that focuses on what the move to ‘information modelling’ looks like for each Sector. While Government agencies form part of the approach, there are other sectors such as water, energy, rail, mining, local councils etc. that need to be considered if BIM is to positively impact all of QLD and its economy.

It would be detrimental to have “two streams” of capacity in QLD – those that can do BIM and those that cannot. Any implementation approach needs to consider how all of Queensland will adopt BIM in a measured and staged approach.

This is not a new thing for Queensland. It has achieved standardisation in the past and the Seqwater Code6 along with the ADAC7 standards are two great examples of a sector or sectors coming together to solve important issues that affect them and their businesses.

Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) typically have limited resources to upskill while delivering projects, so asking them to “retool” and implement better information management practices needs a measured and considered approach, aligned to their ability (cost, time, resource) to implement change. These organisations form the bulk of the “everyday” services delivery to Queenslanders and their input will be needed to solve these issues.

Finally, as QLD has the highest proportion of regional and rural population of any Australian state or territory the implementation plan must also consider these groups.

The idea of a sector based approach was proposed, led and supported by DILGP, to define what building an information model looks like for each sector. This has been successful n other parts of the world where BIM has been mandated, such as the UK8 and Scotland9.

The Transport and Infrastructure Council National DE Working Group has also endorsed five workstreams to guide the implementation approach. These are:

1. People – Capacity and Capability2. Information Requirements3. Processes and Procedures4. Standards and Object Libraries5. Technology

As with any change management process people will be the key. There needs to be committed individuals at all levels of industry to make this a success.

It is envisaged that DILGP could lead this initiative, with support from clients, State and Local Government, industry, academia, building SMART and professional membership organisations such as Engineers Australia, Consult Australia and the Australian Institute of Architects.

What do you think? Would the sector-based approach work? Do the workstreams make sense?

Would you like to be actively involved in shaping how future generations, within your sector and region, build information models using Better Information Management?

For Queensland businesses to remain competitive, skilled and efficient then there needs to be a level of common approaches (i.e. standards) that the whole state can work with.

Please register your interest here