bim with the end in mind

{01787543;1}

BIM WITH THE END IN MIND

APRIL 2021 USIBD BIM SUBCOMMITTEE

White Paper

BIM best practices and the value of Owner engagement

usibd.org


BIM with the End in Mind D101_VER1.0_2021 usibd.org USIBD copyright 2021 All Rights Reserved

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ___________________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Abstract __________________________________________________________________________ 3

Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ 4

Who is in the driver’s seat? ___________________________________________________________ 4

Clarity in Owner Requirements ________________________________________________________ 4

The “I” in BIM (Information) is all about the asset data _____________________________________ 5

The benefits of an identical Digital Twin _________________________________________________ 5

Best Practices for optimal BIM ________________________________________________________ 5

Project BIM Integrator ______________________________________________________________ 6

Case Study: Development of a Digital Twin for USC School of Cinematic Arts ____________________ 8

Case Study: A General Contractor Delivering Owner BIM without Pre-established Guidelines ______ 10

Afterword: BIM and Digital Twins as Part of the Continuum of Computer Automation in Construction11

Works Cited ______________________________________________________________________ 13



Abstract

In this white paper, you will learn:

• What Project BIM has looked like to owners and how they’ve left its lifecycle value on the table;

• “How To” – Best practices for leveraging BIM for better Lifecycle Facility Management;

• A Case Study: How an owner of a famous, large building did it right;

• Caution: How “on-the-fly” BIM Guidelines can sometimes be “off-the-mark”;

• The Big Picture: BIM and Digital Twins as part of the continuous evolution of computer automation in the building industry.

Key Words BIM, VDC, EBIM, 6D, Asset Management, Digital Twin, BIM Guidelines, Project Integration

Authors Christopher Everist, Innovation Executive, BNBuilders John Stebbins, Principal Project Integrator, VDC, Gafcon, Inc. Dan Edelsen, Principal, STEREO



Introduction

Building Information Models (BIMs) are increasingly being used by building owners with large portfolios. The goal of this white paper is to provide an accessible overview to non-BIM practitioners of the full value of representing built assets digitally. Emphasis is made on the value of owner participation in the process, specifically in the development of their own BIM Guidelines that effectively convey the what and the why of an owner’s BIM needs for the owner’s long-term financial benefit. With clear, consistent, and concise BIM Guidelines, and with sound process oversight, information that owners need to efficiently operate and maintain their facility will be incorporated into BIMs for their built facility. BIM Guidelines are particularly valuable for owners that build and maintain multiple buildings. Such builders benefit most from an asset management process that effectively tracks and monitors those assets.

Who is in the driver’s seat?

Building owners have increasingly become the driving force in the evolution of the use of Building Information Modeling because they have realized that they have the most to gain, and if BIM is not used, they may have missed a good opportunity. BIM traditionally has benefited design and construction teams with a focus more on graphical and project-based outputs; these include more efficient construction documents, better collaboration, improved project planning and scheduling, reduced RFIs and rework, and more accurate fabrication. All of these are terrific benefits. However, owners often ask their architects or contractors to use BIM without clearly explaining, in the big picture, what they want and why they want it. Architects and contractors are sometimes not as proactive in asking about the client’s BIM goals. This usually results in confused design and construction teams and rarely in a valuable BIM-based handover at the end of the project. Besides receiving a better building in the end, how can owners most benefit from a BIM process?

Clarity in Owner Requirements

Owners need to specify in a clear, consistent, and concise manner—early in the process—what information they want to get out of BIM. The clearer an owner’s demands on information content, the more likely owners will see the Project Team respect their needs, follow their lead, and give them what they want. When the process change inherent in BIM is considered, owners can look forward to stronger engagement with their Project Teams.



As owners start to seek more benefits from BIM, the opportunities BIM can provide can sometimes be overwhelming. Without structured objectives and requirements aligned to the owner’s BIM needs, BIM can result in a significant waste of time and energy. The BIM process should begin with the end in mind—what are the owner’s big picture BIM needs and what end deliverables fulfill those needs, and then work backward from there.

The “I” in BIM (Information) is all about the asset data

Owners not only need a building; they need the information about the building. Those providing BIM services often overlook the fact that owners do not have much use for only 3D models. BIM data is as much about an owner’s ongoing procurement and operational procedures as it is about the design and construction process. Think about BIM as the starting point for Enterprise Building Information Modeling (or EBIM)–beyond its use on single projects. Imagine how beneficial well-integrated building data can be to owners if multiple buildings are linked together in one environment, where operational data from an enterprise-wide portfolio can be extracted and analyzed to assist in decision making-- like look-ahead schedule forecasting, earned value analysis, and cash flow prediction. The transition from BIM to EBIM is a logical extension of the principles behind intelligent data management. Countless opportunities arise when considering the bigger picture that links BIM to Facilities Management to GIS (Geographic Information Systems). When the BIMs are augmented with time-based dynamic data such as the Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data and the Internet of Actions (IoA) end-user data to usher in the use of the Digital Twin.

The benefits of an identical Digital Twin

The Digital Twin is a digital replica of a built environment, augmented with time-based dynamic data such as the Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data, Internet of Actions (IoA) end-user data, changes to equipment and fixtures (building assets), including the impact of tenant improvements (TI), retrofits, and renovation. The Digital Twin can also be used for a variety of simulations and analysis, along with its use in day-to-day building operations. In short, this digital replica and associated data provides the owner with actionable intelligence to make key decisions during the operational life cycle of the building. BIM is as much about management as it is about technology; technology facilitates this process. BIM has evolved beyond model coordination and clash detection into a long-term, management-intensive process throughout the entire building lifecycle. For owners who are large-scale serial builders and maintain a large portfolio of buildings and campuses, the owner needs to control the BIM processes necessary for the success of a long-term, portfolio-wide BIM program.

Best Practices for optimal BIM



BIM allows facility management asset data to be exported in a straightforward manner. One industry-standard approach to organizing asset data is to use the internationally-recognized building industry format called COBie (or Construction Operations Building Information Exchange). COBie data is effective if the key stakeholders are on the same page about an owner’s basic data requirements. No matter what format is used to handover the data at the end of the project, it must be structured, logical, and consistent, with each managed building asset tied to a unique identifier that can act as an asset tag (and even act as the annotation tag or element name on the drawings) in order to identify the 3D objects within the BIMs and the same tag can be used as an identification label or placard in the real building throughout the building lifecycle. The main tool for managing the BIM process to benefit the owner’s EBIM efforts is to author and keep updated BIM Guidelines and Standards. BIM Guidelines, created in-house or through an owner’s representative, need to clearly communicate the owner’s requirements and expectations. The models must be a contracted deliverable that provide geometry and static data for:

● Well-coordinated CDs, ● Effective clash detection and spatial coordination during design and construction, and ● The foundation of the Digital Twin used during operations and the long-term building lifecycle.

A completed BIM Execution Plan (BEP), based on an owner-authored template, should be an addendum to design and construction contracts, providing the “teeth” necessary for the owner to hold the A/E and GC Teams accountable for the BIM deliverables.

Project BIM Integrator

Once the owner has an established set of BIM Guidelines and Standards, there is a need to oversee the use of these documents and validate that the deliverables submitted by the designers and the general contractor conform to the BIM requirements and the deliverables set forth in the BEP. The owner will need to provide this oversight on every project. There is a growing need for owners to enable the role of an emerging professional—the Project BIM Integrator. The Project BIM Integrator synchronizes the work of the entire project’s BIM efforts as the owner’s representative to make the process successful throughout the design-build-operate lifecycle. Since the owner is the only stakeholder around throughout the entire project lifecycle, the owner is the only one who can provide this role. The Project BIM Integrator is best provided internally as part of the owner’s in-house staff or through a neutral third-party vendor. The best BIM vendor service providers that can truly represent the owner’s interest are well-established BIM consultants or construction managers that have a wide variety of large-scale BIM experience and who know how to represent owners at an enterprise level. Generally, architects, engineers, or general contractors cannot provide this role, not only due to conflict of interest, but their role on any project is brief- one to two years for design or construction, compared to the time commitment of the owner which could be 40 plus years needed to maintain and operate a building



throughout its lifecycle. Design or construction professionals have their own internal processes to leverage BIM, but self-interest prevents them from truly representing the owner for a program-wide BIM effort, especially if the firm competes for design or construction services required by the owner. The Project BIM Integrator can also facilitate the authoring of the owner’s BIM templates, including BIM Execution Plan templates, design start-up templates, modeling responsibilities templates, etc. What are the primary roles of a Project BIM Integrator?

● Review the A/E and GC’s proposals for BIM capabilities ● Review and recommend on BEPs provided by the A/E and GC Teams ● Set up and train on the project-based Common Collaboration Platform (Common Data Environment)

for sharing the Project Team’s models, files and documents ● Coach the Design and Construction BIM Spatial Coordination Teams, as necessary ● Provide oversight on the BIM Spatial Coordination process ● Coordinate the development and validation of an asset tagging system that acts as the unique

identifier of building elements to be managed and tracked ● Provide periodic A/E Team model reviews ● Validate model Element Naming Standards ● Validate hand-over deliverables: as-built models that reflect as-constructed conditions that can be

transformed into Record Models, as well as required data and documents that will live on as part of the Digital Twin.

BIM service professionals need to understand the transformative impact of BIM that places a strong focus on information management throughout the building lifecycle. The majority of BIM development still focuses on the priorities of the architect, engineering consultants, and the contractor. The sooner owners put themselves in the “BIM Driver’s Seat” with clearly established guidelines and deliverables, facilitated by the Project BIM Integrator, the more BIM will become a stepping-stone to an information-rich future. It is time to embrace how BIM is changing owner’s needs to provide solutions that equally benefit them.



Case Study: Development of a Digital Twin for USC School of Cinematic Arts

USC’s School of Cinematic Arts provides a good case study of how to unify numerous stakeholders and silos of information over the lifecycle of a building into a Digital Twin (CFTA, 2015). Through USC’s leadership role in defining clear goals for what data they wanted to continuously monitor, USC was able to successfully transition from construction to operation of a Digital Twin of the School of Cinematic Arts, one of the first developments of a Digital Twin in the United States. Background USC’s School of Cinematic Arts (SCA) is one of the oldest and most prestigious film schools in the United States. It was founded in 1929 in collaboration with the Academy of Motion Pictures Art and Sciences and included Charlie Chaplin among its founding faculty. Upon receiving several substantial donations in 2006, SCA set out to build a new complex on the USC Campus. Parallel to the design and construction of world-class soundstages, production studios and collaborative learning environments, the complex also sought to serve as a pilot for how other buildings across campus could unify the multitude of systems involved in facility operations. It was determined there were several specific data streams that USC’s Facilities Management group wanted to monitor, two of the most significant being energy management data and work orders. The systems management software eventually linked to the BIM model included 2DFAMIS, Meridian, MasterSpec, and Honeywell. BIM beginnings USC Design teams began using Revit, an industry standard BIM authoring software, on several projects in 2006, prior to construction of the new SCA building. While they had been utilizing BIM before SCA, SCA marked the first time USC utilized BIM for MEP Systems, enabling the ability to integrate building operations live maintenance monitoring into their projects. USC’s Facilities Management Services had initial issues with the usability of some models delivered by project design teams and spent a year developing their own set of standards and a BIM Execution Plan template that they required design firms working with them to follow. USC’s Facilities Management Services has continued to evolve their standards, and today possess one of the more advanced sets of BIM Standards and Execution plans for a University in the United States. USC’s BIM Standards are available to the public on the USC Facilities Management Services website. The drivers behind USC’s BIM Standards are to “gain efficiencies during design and construction, and to use the model to troubleshoot the building” says Jose Delgado, CAD Manager at USC Facilities Management Services during a presentation made on April 2nd, 2015 on behalf of the Building Geospatial Technology Showcase. One of the big issues with the design models was that the parameters being used did not align with those the school wanted to use to monitor their buildings. In BIMs, parameters are the embedded data in the model elements and are wide ranging in their scope, as varied as the height of a wall or product



information for a sink. The ability to embed parameter data into objects is the “I” (Information) in BIM. It elevates BIMs from standard 3D models into something that can serve as a database and be utilized throughout a building’s life cycle, from construction documentation all the way to facilities management. In Revit, there are both project parameters— the parameters specific to the project file—and shared parameters—parameters that can be used across different files and projects. To ensure interoperability, USC took the BIM project parameters out of the hands of Project Teams and created their own shared parameters file that they had all firms download and incorporate upon beginning work. With these shared parameters integrated into design team models from the beginning, USC could be confident that the information being developed in design models could be utilized by USC’s Facilities Management Services from day one without a time intensive reformatting of embedded data. While the parameters USC chose to focus on had very specific naming standards, there was not an overwhelming number of requirements. Still, creating uniformity in parameters ensured bi-directional use across disciplines, models, and eventually multiple software. Some of the more in-depth parameter requirements were embedded in the MEP discipline’s model. USC specifies that fully functional MEP systems are modeled in their BIMs, so that they can be better utilized in the context of Facility Management. All Equipment Schedules are expected to be generated in the BIMs and to be fully parametric, meaning they are directly connected to the digital model. USC often has an outside BIM consultant to QC all firm’s work, to make sure everything is aligned with their standards. It is an added upfront cost that USC believes is worthwhile. It was crucial that COBie is accounted for in all BIMs to ensure the retrieval of asset data across multiple platforms. While COBie data has the potential to be exhaustive, USC was very specific about the categories of asset data they require, on average six fields per element. On SCA for example, the use of Spaces was incorporated into the BIM models, because it tied directly into energy data and work orders, which then became associated with visualization in a middleware program where one could click on specific systems or VAV boxes and see the equipment set points and work order history. By limiting the COBie requirements to assets they knew they would be monitoring, USC was able to bypass some of the heavier and denser COBie standards, reducing setup time, cost, and stakeholder confusion while ensuring all models contained the asset data needed for operations. Systems integration At the heart of any successful Digital Twin is an understanding of what systems will be monitored, what data needs to be extracted, and when. While the idea of a Digital Twin in the same context as an airplane engine—a completely live updated digital replica of an in-use component—was broached, what was deemed more feasible was a process where a single interface brought together operations data in a way that could be easily visualized and contextualized by all stakeholders. Most Electronic Document Management Systems (EDMS) used on campus are heavily siloed due to proprietary company policies. It was not realistic to expect that all data would merge into a unified model. What was more feasible and instead implemented was the use of a middleware platform where data from multiple systems could be viewed. In the case of SCA the primary focus was on Honeywell’s Bi-directionality as a crucial requirement



of the middleware. It was important that information could be viewed and exported back to a variety of sources. Through the use of a middleware program specifically for merging all streams of data, a process was established that was easy to use and allowed team members to access and upload information online that was then integrated into a visual interface connected to BIM and the EDMS. Managing change Changes, such as significant demolitions, additions, and renovations, may only take place every few years. Replacement of windows, doors and other hardware may be an ongoing process that needs to be documented manually and then updated in the model monthly. Leaks, electrical outages, and HVAC systems may require real-time sensors. All these things go into the Digital Twin but can be updated at different speeds without sacrificing the integrity of the concept. In defining the uses of a Digital Twin for the SCA lifecycle, USC thought critically about how often information would be updated and how. Student’s in the Viterbi School of Engineering Construction Management Program were tasked with manual BIM modeling while Honeywell’s energy management systems updated automatically through IoT sensors. Unlike a deliverable from one of their team members, USC’s operations work is never truly complete. The fact that the building continues to evolve and change is at the heart of what makes a Digital Twin valuable. While a Digital Twin can certainly be utilized to mitigate disasters such as leaking pipes or security outages, at its root, a Digital Twin for a building is an opportunity for managing change.

Case Study: A General Contractor Delivering Owner BIM without Pre-established Guidelines

Let’s study a recently produced record model for use by the facility management group of a major pharmaceutical company. This company recognized the potential a digital representation of their anticipated state of the art facility had, but at the time did not have BIM Guidelines to communicate what data in the model was valuable to them and how they intended to use it. In response, the general contractor awarded to build the facility and the owner worked together to define just that. Expectations were set with the plumbing, mechanical, electrical and fire protection trade disciplines involved in the authorship of 3D models for clash detection. These expectations included providing data to be associated with digitally represented assets and the need to update 3D models to match what was built. In short, the general contractor provided the role of the BIM Integrator defined in Part One of this paper. The result was a Record Model that was confirmed to match what was built. Priority assets defined ahead of time were classified using OmniClass® defined codes. Attributes agreed to as being valuable were associated with each asset. Furthermore, both models and data were made accessible from a web browser. The digital representation of the built facility was delivered shortly after the built facility was opened for operation.



To assess the success of the team’s effort, the general contractor and owner agreed to what the typical steps would be to address the maintenance of a built asset without a digital version available for reference. Steps with improvement potential were then identified. For instance, often assets that require maintenance are not easily accessible because they are concealed or accessing them might disrupt sensitive work in progress. To access the asset, a scheduled shut down of sensitive work would be required and production might be delayed. Furthermore, dust caused by accessing the asset might introduce contaminants to the workspace. Would a Digital Twin prevent this costly disruption? Would traffic be minimized in and out of the space if it were known exactly what the asset was and if it was possible to diagnose its malfunction remotely? Would the facility management group’s patience expire waiting to load the digital model? Furthermore, without a process in place for updating the digital assets, there would be a risk that digitally represented assets do not match the physical assets. Beyond communicating this assessment to the owner, no further steps were made by the general contractor to improve the owner’s process. This owner remains committed to represent all new assets digitally, to digitize all built asset and to integrate digital asset data with other facility management data streams that include facility management work orders.

Afterword: BIM and Digital Twins as Part of the Continuum of Computer Automation in Construction

What got us here? Three-dimensional (3D) spaces and objects have traditionally been imagined and communicated with flat, paper-based two-dimensional (2D) mediums. To take the mental leap from a 2D drawing to a 3D space and back again beckons skilled interpretation steeped in craft and tradition. When modern computing empowered engineers and designers in all disciplines to design complex systems in 3D, multi-discipline design teams were able to share a unified spatial realization and iterate faster than before. 3D modeled architecture in the late 90s The emergence of photo-realistic computer-generated renderings of three-dimensional spaces signaled bigger changes to come. Perspective drawings of three-dimensional spaces command attention because they transport you to another space. While engineers and designers flocked to the technology that produced the photo-real three-dimensional spectacle, their work product output remained unchanged. Instructions for the assembly of buildings continued to be black lines on white paper. Working in one model in the late 2000s The rift between imagining architecture in 3D; with cardboard, balsa wood, or digitally derived 3D shapes, and documenting architecture with lines on paper presented a problem. Traditional floor plans, elevations and sections are both informed by and inform the imagined three-dimensional twin of what will eventually be forged in our material realm at 1 to 1 scale. Furthermore, the numerous 2D floor plans and



elevations of the simplest design project inevitably evolved independently of one another and required intentional management during the construction document production process to bring them back into alignment. For instance, if the placement of a door changes on a floor plan, this same door represented in an elevation also needed to move accordingly. When 3D design software aimed to reduce the manual alignment of individual drawings that represent a single thing, the time required to revise designs was reduced, and enabled the production of higher quality documents. 3D design software allowed architects and engineers to work in a single model where when a door on a floor plan is moved 1 foot, zero inches to the west, the representation of that same door on a 2D elevation was revised accordingly instantly. As design teams continued to transition from a 2D to a 3D workflow, their output remained two-dimensional and paper based. BIM in construction in the 2010s Building construction professionals quickly embraced 3D design software to optimize fabrication. Software that supports the compilation and visualization of different digital 3D file formats changed the conversation around what coordination entailed. The same software allows teams to identify where building systems are designed to occupy the same space, commonly referred to as a “clash”. Project Teams hosted "clash detection" meetings to identify constructability issues that might have otherwise halted construction and resolved them in a virtual space. Building construction teams became versed in building a project twice. The first pass would happen in a virtual space with trade foremen and detailers focused on producing coordinated instructions to fabricate and assemble building systems that fit right the first time. Contracts and delivery methods vary from region to region. For instance, the role of the Quantity Surveyor is more common outside of the USA. Innovations that rely on accurate, quickly derived quantities began to be explored. Construction projects today are mostly quantified manually by tracing 2D documents. But movement began to tap into the quantities available in digitally represented 3D building systems. Selling the advantages of using quantities reported from 3D models of building systems is not without its own challenges. Yes, quantifying building systems using traditional 2D documents is time-consuming and prone to human error, but 3D models produced for design are often incomplete and organized in a way that does not immediately align with the standard classification systems of building systems. Furthermore, designers and architects might not immediately benefit from modeling three-dimensional building systems in a way that group them into categories estimators use to report them. As the decade ended, architects and building construction professionals began to use 3D models to enhance their individual workflows. Our clients, the owners and operators of the facilities and campuses we imagine and realize, are positioned to define how they might benefit from how the teams they assemble work differently together and what products will support the operation and maintenance of their built assets. 2020 and beyond



The era of Digital Twins has begun, and the adventure continues… When your needs include the documentation of existing building conditions, we recommend contacting USIBD certified specialists found at https://usibd.org/resources/loa-referral-list.

Works Cited

CFTA, C. F. (2015, April 3). 2015 04 02 13 02 USC BIM Standards and Contract Submittal Requirements. Retrieved from BIM Standards and Contract Submittal Requirements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBlBApOsWKw

U.S. Institute of Building Documentation 18141 Irvine Blvd. Tustin, CA 92780

1-833-USIBD4U (833-874-2348) www.usibd.org

http://www.usibd.org/

bim with the end in mind

Documents