CIFE Center for Integrated Facility Engineering •Stanford University CIFE Seed Proposal Summary Page

2008-2009 Projects

Proposal Title: Communicating, and Integrating, and Visualizing Multi-Disciplinary Design Processes

Principal Investigator(s): John Haymaker, Vladlen Koltun

Research Staff: Reid Senescu, Forest Flager, Ben Welle

Proposal Number: (Assigned by CIFE):

Total Funds Requested: $120,000

First Submission? Yes If extension, project URL:

Abstract (up to 150 words):

Despite advances in Building Information Modelling (BIM) and building simulations, ineffective communication and integration of process limits industry’s ability to improve design. Current projects at CIFE are refining the characteristics and metrics for effective communication and integration of processes by reviewing literature in process modelling and human computer interaction, and observing and measuring current practice. In this seed project, we propose to create and test an open-source tool called PIP (Process Information Platform) that aims to help distributed and collocated multidisciplinary teams to iteratively define, manage, share, and their interoperable design processes. We use a hypothetical Narrative to demonstrate the characteristics and metrics of PIP. We propose to implement PIP, and to measure its effectiveness in helping multidisciplinary design teams communicate, integrate, and visualize the results of their design processes, resulting in faster and more sustainable buildings.Despite the influx of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and advanced building simulations, ineffective information exchange still limits the building industry’s ability to improve design processes. We propose creating a methodology and tool called Process for Continuous Improvement of Process (P-cip) that aims to improve the development and sharing of interoperable design processes. First, we will research characteristics for effective development and sharing of processes. Next, we will choose metrics to evaluate process development and sharing, and we will use these metrics to measure current practice. We will leverage research in information visualization and human computer interaction to develop new methods for recording and visualizing the evolution of project information. Finally, we will create a prototype user interface for P-cip. In this proposal, we use a hypothetical narrative to demonstrate the steps of the research and explain the characteristics of P-cip.

1 Introduction: If BIM is arevolutionizes the pProcess, wWhere is BIM?the revolution?

To some, BIM is a process (Eastman 2007). To many others, BIM at the very least changes the design process (Autodesk; Government Services Agency 2007). The association of BIM with

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 1

process change pervades Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC). Yet, little commercial development of BIM is process-centric, and the major BIM-authoring tools do not provide explicit support for defining and sharing processes. Parametric capabilities offer one possible exception as they formalize a new process, but parametric tools still lack transparency, limiting broader process change. Despite the rhetoric that BIM fundamentally shifts design processes, the industry generally still plug the new tools into a process that predates computers. While the capabilities of simulation and modeling and simulation tools expand, order of magnitude increases in design process efficiency and effectiveness remain elusive.

This proposal uses an example from current practice to demonstrate how current limitations in interoperability the way teams communicate and manage processes limit BIM’s promise to drastically improve design process efficiency and effectiveness.1 Rather than propose specific interoperability2 solutions, the proposal reviews why previous efforts at a single solution have been unsuccessful. The proposal then uses a Narrative (Haymaker 2006) to describe the characteristics of a tool, Called Process Process Integration Platform for Continuous Improvement to Process (P-cipIP). We outline research tasks including literature review and observation of industry to coalesce information on the state of the art in process modeling, development of a prototype tool that embodies these characteristics, and chatrette and field testing of the tool to evaluate the extent to which the tool help s teams better communicate and integrate these design processes, and to visualize the results.

2 Observed Problems: Communication, Integration, an Visualization of Multidisciplinary Processes

OCommunicating Design ProcessesFor the design of the Stanfordn the Stanford Graduate School of Business campus projectGraduate School of Business campus, stakeholders used MACDADI (Haymaker and Chachere 2006) to communicate the importance of material responsibility when choosing structural systems. The Arup engineer created schematic Revit Structure models of steel and concrete structural options. Many tools (e.g. Athena, BEES, LCADesign) aim at assisting designers in making environmentally sustainable material decisions. Jen Tobias, A CIFE studentresearcher at CIFE had even , used an IFC Revit model and LCADesign software to assess the environmental impacts of another project on campus project in Germany (Tobias and Haymaker 2007). However, gGiven the time and budget constraints, the Arup engineer was not able to find Jen’s this model-based process nor create a new process that would allow the team to effectively use the BIM model to further inform the team’s structural system decision with environmental impact data. Project teams have difficulty communicating design processes across projects.

Exchanging Project Information (FF)On the same project, a lighting engineer needed to perform a daylight analysis to decide which skylight configuration provided the best quality of light. The engineers’ process for constructing this day lighting model from the Revit model involved over 15 distinct steps and 30 hours to reformulate the model constructed by the architect to appropriately meet the requirements of his Radiance day lighting analysis routine. Significant improvements in this process were possible, but the designer and architect lacked the clarity of each other’s process to assure the right information was contained in the architects’ model to eliminate many of these steps. A recent survey (Flager & Haymaker, 2007) reinforces this observation, where respondents stated that 1 This proposal uses the International Alliance for Interoperability definition of interoperability: “the exchange of information among project participants throughout the lifecycle of a facility by direct communication between software application (Barrett and Grobler 2000).2 This proposal uses the International Alliance for Interoperability definition of interoperability: “the exchange of information among project participants throughout the lifecycle of a facility by direct communication between software application (Barrett and Grobler 2000).

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 2

they spend nearly two thirds of their time managing information during concept design. Project teams have difficulty integrating their processes among disciplines.

In both cases the designers produce performance feedback on a particular design option, but do not have effective tools/methods to manage a range of options (design space) or to quickly assess and visualize multidisciplinary system performance over that range. This made it challenging for them to know what aspects of their designs had the greatest impact on building performance, or to decide which designs provided the best value, and to understand which design variables they should focus on moving forward to further improve the design. Project teams have difficulty visualizing the results of their multidisciplinary design processes.Advancements in computer-based product modeling and analysis make it possible for AEC professionals to accurately simulate product performance in an increasing number of areas (architecture, structure, energy, lighting, cost, etc.). However, the potential of these tools to inform early stage design decisions has been limited by the time required to create and exchange information between tools. Arup survey results: majority of time spent managing information

Data SchemaInteroperability evokes the possibility of a single database of building information organized in a single data schema (IAI). Researchers continue to develop improved methods for developing standards for specific applications (Lee et al. 2007). These standards are powerful, but other strategies such as Application Programming Interface (API), customized commercial software links, and simple user-written mapping scripts will continue to be a vital part of AEC interoperability efforts. Many of these efforts lack an explicit representation of process, and methods to dynamically generate and share these processes.

Understanding Multidisciplinary Performance Trade-offs (FF)Current practice, designers are given performance feedback on a particular design option, but do not have effective tools/methods to define a range of options (design space) or to quickly assess system performance over that range. Moreover, AEC professionals lack common metrics to compare performance across multiple disciplines or conduct and visualize trade studies between among systems.

3 Intuition: A Process Integration PlatformCurrent BIM tools provide an opportunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the design process. To date, designers have not fully capitalized on this opportunity. In order to better communicate, integrate, and optimize visualize design processes, we propose practitioners require a web-based Process Integration Platform (PIP) (see Figure 2) with the following characteristics:

Transparent: A transparent design process is quickly and accurately understood by those not involved in the design.

Usable: Most engineers lack the extra time to write codes document and to improve their design process. Features, such as drag and drop, drop down menus, and a familiar graphical user interface allow new users to utilize PIP with no training.

Sharable: For effective communication of processes, sharing must be embedded in the design process, so that engineers share their work by default. Still, engineers must be able to control access privileges, allowing processes to be accessed by the public, by the project team, or only to internal to the company.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 3

Incentivized: The first users of PIP must be incentivized to embed the tool in their design process. In addition, users must be incentivized to improve their processes. PIP must provide mechanism that encourages this use by tracking and rewarding user input.

Searchable: The structural engineer uses multiple search fields to find the process for which he is looking. He can Designers need to filter the searches and browse through the results in numerous ways. They need algorithms arethat are intelligent and learn from their users. A structural engineer in San Francisco, for example, is more likely to be looking for a process created by a structural engineer in Los Angeles for finding the environmental impact of concrete than a plumbing engineer in Thailand looking at the environmental benefits of bamboo.

Modular: The structural engineer demonstrated modular byDesigners should be able to use old processes as the basis of new processes – assembling multidisciplinary design processes by combining several parts of other processes into his own process. P-cip is modular in the sense that interoperability links can be copied and pasted into new processes. This modularity does not suggest a specific data schema or software standard, but rather recognizes that such standards will probably never exist.

Modularity can also be viewed as the ability to use old processes as the basis of new processes. The development of new design processes is a creative design process in itself. Thus, organizational scientists would view modularity as important, because, “creative solutions are built from the recombination of existing ideas” (Hargadon and Bechky 2006).

Scalable: Designers need to use these processes at different levels of process and product detail. For example, they may want to The structural engineer selects Library from the drop down menu, because he only wants to perform an analysis on the library, not the entire graduate school of business campus. This filtering of the total project deliverable, the product, is product scalable. He could have analysedanalyze just a particular room in the library, the entire librarybuilding, or the entire GSB project, or even the entire Stanford campus. Similarly, they may want to model a Some processes would apply regardless of scale and others are very dependent on product scale“Structural Material Responsibility Analysis” node that lies within a process containing other analysis nodes such as “Structural Analysis” and “Lighting Analysis.” This level of detail falls beneath an even higher level node called simply “Analysis.”

Integratable.

The structural engineer creates a “Structural Material Responsibility Analysis” node that lies on a process containing other analysis nodes such as “Structural Analysis” and “Lighting Analysis.” This level of detail falls beneath an even higher level node called simply “Analysis.” This “Analysis” node is described by Haymaker and Chachere (2006) and forms part of the MACDADI framework along with nodes labelled Goals, Preferences, Options, and Decisions. Double clicking on the “Structural Material Responsibility Analysis” node brings up the more detailed process shown in Error: Reference source not found.

Designers choose how to scale their products and processes. For example, a structural engineer may perform one process on concrete beam section, a different process on the concrete beam, and an entirely different process on the entire building.

Computable: Designers need to be able to use these process models to drive the automation of their processes.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 4

Support VisualizeDesign Space Exploration : Designers need to be able to view the results of several iterations through these process models, to help them understand the solutions spaces they have generated and analyzed to help them further refine their design processes, and to choose the best designs.

4 Points of Departure5The example in Section 2 Error: Reference source not found demonstrates how the lack of interoperability solution development and sharing fundamentally limit BIM’s impact on AEC. Section 3 intuits several characteristics of a Process Integration Platform that can address these limitations. We propose these deficiencies stem largely from the absence of a process modeling tool with the characteristics we will list in Section 7.2. Before proposing such a tool, we review related work in defining and sharing design process information and assess the extent to which it helps address these characteristics..

Integrated Project Delivery is a design, procurement, and construction approach that integratesintegrate people, systems, business structures and practices (AIA, 2007). They specify design process milestones and people included in each process, but do not formalize the information flow and tools needed to ensure effective interoperable processes.

Lee et al. (2007) use Process Models to improve product data models – a formal and structured definition of product information such as IFC’s. Lee identified several drawbacks to the ISO STEP product modeling method, including: they are built as single generic models to represent idealized industry-wide processes preventing local variations; are thus high-level and lacking in detail; are defined more as archives of data instead of as support for strategic workflow processes; and do not well support the developmental and evolutionary aspects of product development. They argue that product models must have a closer linkage with workflow and that mapping between processes and the product model data should become an explicit part of the definition activity. Lee et al. seek to use process models to develop future product data models. That is, software developers, not designers, use the process models, and they are thereof not intended to be transparent, usable, and sharable by project teams..

Information Delivery Manuals (IDMs) are an integral component of the International Alliance for Interoperability’s (IAI) buildingSMART initiative and Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) development effort. The purpose of IDMs is to provide a human-readable integrated reference identifying “best practice” design processes and the data schemas and information flows necessary to execute effective model-based design analyses.

Information Delivery Manuals (IDMs) are an integral component of the International Alliance for Interoperability’s (IAI) buildingSMART initiative and Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) development effort for the advancement of building information modeling (BIM) functionality. The purpose of IDMs is to provide a human-readable integrated reference identifying “best practice” design processes and the information flows necessary to execute effective model-based design analyses, and specify the required data schemas to support this process. However, current process modeling approaches IDMs are formulated at an abstract level to define general data exchanges, processes, and design team requirements, and have limited value as a project-specific design guidance and management tool. More comprehensive process maps are needed that allow for the inclusion of a project’s participants (such as owners, project managers, and community groups), goals, preferences, schedule, budget, and building delivery process, providing design guidance and management for the required communication and data exchange processes and iteration loops.

Another sentence on Claudio’s construction processes here.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 5

Narratives are formal, visual descriptions of the design process that include representations, reasoning, and their interrelationships (Haymaker 2006). Distinguish between Geometric Narrator (computable, not sharable) and Narrator (sharable, less computable).

JH to insert sentence about decision dashboard here.

JH to explain MACDADI here

BPEL

To improve Knowledge Sharing, Conklin (1996) explains a “project memory system” to explicitly define informal knowledge and make it available to others. He observes that the system is necessary, because organizations lack the ability “to represent critical aspects of what they know.” We share a similar focus on the “design of project memory as an evolutionary stepping stone to organizational memory.” However, Conklin generally applies this system to capturing knowledge from meetings, whereas we focus on capturing design process information. Demian and Fruchter (2004) developed a methodology for knowledge reuse in a corporation, but the methodology lacked an explicit representation of processes. Do we need to reference this?

Design Rationale research develops methods for better understanding the design process and ideas for improving its current state by representing the reasons behind the creation of a particular artifact (Moran and Carroll 1996). Conklin and Yakemovic use Issue-Based Information Systems (IBIS) and process tracking to better understand and track reasons behind design decisions (1991). Professionals rarely implement Design Rationale systems, because designers struggle to document their rationale concurrently to performing design. The process models proposed in this proposal strive to improve sharing of computable information by embedding process tracking into design planning and execution.Several CIFE methods have advanced the design of process models for use by AEC professionals in practice. Geometric Narrator (Haymaker et al, 2004), enables a designer to build a scalable computable process from sub processes, but lacks an intuitive visual interface and mechanisms to easily share and collaborate with these processes. Narratives are formal, visual descriptions of the design process that include representations, reasoning, and their interrelationships (Haymaker 2006). Narrator addresses the communication deficiencies of Geometric Narrator, but at the expense of its integration power. Decision Dashboard (Kam, 2005) clearly communicates options, alternatives, and criteria, and contains some preliminary ability to compute values associated with these process nodes from information contained in related nodes. However DD is a single use tool that does not easily support multi user sharing and collaboration. MACDADI (Haymaker & Chachere, 2006) further communicates the people, tools, goals, preferences, options, analyses, and decisions associated in design. However, like these other current CIFE tools, MACDADI is not well integrated into BIM-based design and analysis tools

Design Space Exploration and Visualization - Talton (2008) combines crowd-sourcing and artificial intelligence to teach computers about the appearance of photo-realistic renderings of trees. We seek to apply this “collaborative mapping of a parametric design space” to a user-created database of design processes. As engineers use the database, the computer learns what processes a designer may want to follow based on the current context of the design problem. For example, the computer may observe stakeholders, goals, preferences, the user, and the current state of information available and then, suggest the most efficient and effective design processes to follow.

To overcome the difficulties encountered in AEC specific design process modeling and sharing work, we look to knowledge sharing, crowd sourcing, and virtual world work in other domains. Knowledge Sharing, (1996) explains a “project memory system” to explicitly define informal knowledge and make it available to others. However, Conklin generally applies this system to capturing knowledge from meetings, whereas we focus on capturing design process information. Software, media, internet companies, and academia open up their domains and turn to the crowd to tackle huge challenges in their industries. These Crowd-Sourcing Open Source movements transcend traditional organizational science explanation for why people innovate. Hippel and Krogh (2003) propose that the

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 6

open source movement falls in a new category of the innovation model called “Private-Collective.” Hippel proposes that contributors must learn from the experience to contribute, should profit from networking effects of sharing or at least, not lose any money by sharing, and must receive “selective incentives,” such as a sense of ownership or enjoyment of the process.

To overcome the difficulties encountered in design rationale and knowledge sharing work, we look to the open source and crowd sourcing success stories to develop a tool for communicating design processes.

Virtual Worlds

Multi-disciplinary design processes entail complex webs of information dependencies. Process maps generally approximate information exchange. As the capture of information exchange becomes more comprehensive, the process maps become difficult to comprehend and share. Virtual Worlds canTo communicate these complex dependencies, and to assure ubiquitous access and appropriate level of detail for distributed project teams. , the authors seek to learn from the approach taken by computer scientists developing virtual worlds. Chaundhuri et. al. (2008). keep the close virtual world in detail, while a distant sky scraper is represented only as a rectangular prism. The course skyscraper provides perspective, but does not overwhelm comprehension nor computing power. Similarly, weSimilarly, to methods currently employed in virtual worlds, AEC teams need to want to show processes of interest in detail, while providing contextual relations to processes of lower level detail on the periphery.Process ManagementTalton (2008) combines crowd-sourcing and artificial intelligence to teach computers about the appearance of photo-realistic renderings of trees. We seek to apply this “collaborative mapping of a parametric design space” to a user-created database of design processes. As engineers use the database, the computer learns what processes a designer may want to follow based on the current context of the design problem. For example, the computer may observe stakeholders, goals, preferences, the user, and the current state of information available and then, suggest the most efficient and effective design processes to follow.

Design Space Exploration . Parametric Design. Aerospace examples.

6 PIP Storyboard

Inspired by the Points of Departure, the story below illustrates the Process for Continuous Improvement of Process (P-cip) by offering an alternative scenario to the motivating case study described in Section Error: Reference source not found. For this proposal, we will focus on a hypothetical energy analysis challenge rather than the evidential material responsibility example described above. We intuit that P-cip’s success depends on seven fundamental characteristic: Transparent, Usable, Sharable, Incentivized, Searchable, Modular, and Scalable. We use the initials T, U, Sh, I, Se, M, Sc to identify examples of these characteristics in the narrative and then, offer a more detailed description in Section 7.2.

It is early Concept Design for a new library on the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Through the use of MACDADI, the stakeholders have communicated their relative value for a design solution with reduced life cycle and capital costs. The design team would like to consider the impact of various building lengths, orientations, and window to wall ratios on capital and lifecycle costs of the library, considering both the structural and energy performance of the different configurations. The structural engineer has already conducted structural analyses on a number of design alternatives. Now the mechanical engineer will evaluate the impact of the same alternatives on energy performance, and the consequent cost implications.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 7

The mechanical engineer has a Revit model of the library building, and he wants to know how modifications to the building length, orientation, and window to wall ratio impact the thermal performance of the building. His office has never used an object-oriented building model for assessing the energy performance for different envelope designs, and he has only two hours to provide the architect with feedback. Checking the box “Internal Search”, he searches for “Location: California” and “Output: Life Cycle Costs” <Se>. A number of different processes with spreadsheets come up, but none linked to an object-oriented model. He searches external to his company and removes the location, but includes “Input: Revit Model.” He finds a process documented by CIFE that uses a Revit model that eventually feeds into Trane Trace and eQUEST to output energy performance <T>. The engineer has access to these applications. The only problem is that this project did not consider daylighting performance, and the team was asked to assess the impact of daylighting performance on energy consumption <T>. Next, he searches externally for a Daylighting Analysis. He finds a large number of processes for daylighting analysis, but only two that leverage an object-oriented BIM model. Both processes use Revit, but one process posted by Arup has been used 21 times by other design firms in the state, it’s ranked 4.5 stars, and has been used 251 times <T>, while the other has only been used twice outside of the US. He quickly glances at the projects that the other firms have used the process on, and he finds that it has been used on several libraries. He is confident that this process will fit within the context of his own project’s intent, though of course, he will do a few back checks to make sure it works properly.

Going back to the project browser showing the original energy analysis process, the mechanical engineer creates a node called Daylighting Analysis (Step 1). Double clicking on the node to open the empty Daylighting Analysis window, he copies and pastes the Daylighting Analysis process <M> <U> (Step 2). Next, the engineer draws arrows from the Revit model node, energy simulation node, thermal load node, and analysis presentation node to the new Daylighting node <Sc> (Step 3). The mechanical engineer now has a process map showing the path from his Revit model to charts showing the impacts of length, orientation, and window to wall ratio on energy and daylighting performance. This process is shown in the figure on the next page. The design team can now decided on an envelope design based not just on structural performance and cost, but also on energy performance and cost – a goal heavily weighted by the stakeholders <I>.

As part of company policy, he shares the new process with the public <Sh>. Sharing pays off for the firm as a few months later, the public has greatly improved the available BIM-based energy and daylighting process databases, and now his firm can more easily provide feedback on projects using a wide range of BIM models <I>.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 8

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes 9

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes10

7 Research Methods

7.1 POD ReviewWe will review the Points of Departure in Section 3 in more detail to inform the features of the process models that we create. We will also observe design processes in industry.

7.2 Define desired process modeling functionalityBased on a literature review and surveys of professional engineers, we will develop a framework for describing processes based on the process model characteristics described below. The framework will include both an underlying data schema and a graphical visualization.T

7.2.1 Data SchemaAn example of a data schema for each process node may include:

Actor: The person or organization responsible for the actionInput: The information on which the process is dependentTool: The method by which the input is transformed to output (usually, the tool is a particular software).Output: The information that the process creates.Time to Execute: The average time required to transform input to output.Update Status: Indicates whether input information has been changed since the last process run.Automation Status: Indicates whether the entire process is automated within the process model or whether the user needs to run the process manually outside the process model.

7.2.2 Notation / VisualizationIn this proposal, we have used the Narrator notation shown in Figure 1 (Haymaker 2006). As we further define the functional requirements of the process modeling tool, we will revisit the notation and improve it.

Figure 1:Legend of process notation in Narrator.Are we also going to talk about automated visualization of the process from different perspectives here?

7.3 Develop and Implement Process Searching and Prediction AlgorithmsWith the increasing emphasis being put on integrated design, some design teams may find themselves unsure on how best to integrate traditionally disparate building analyses such as daylighting, energy, and cost analysis. The “best practice” design process for a particular project depends on project goals, preferences, budget, schedule, and project team members. Given

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes11

these inputs, prediction algorithms can be developed to provide the user with a logical “first run” at putting together a project design process. These algorithms will query existing general process templates, and selectively piece together various components of the general templates, customizing a design process map for the project team. This process map could then be further modified and refined by the project team to best fit their particular project. These prediction algorithms will be used to automate integrated design process generation within the process tool environment. 7.4 Develop interoperability between analysis and process models. FFCurrent PIDO work. Demonstrate that these integrated processes are improve the efficiency of design processes. Also, that they are robust and reusable on a variety of design problems.

7.5 Integrate design space visualization into process models. FFIntegrated processes allow for the generation of many more options and analysis results than conventional design processes. Designers need a way of quickly documenting and making decisions between design options. We propose a ways for designers to define and visualize trade studies within the context of the process model.

8 Validation 8.1 Interoperability and Design Space VisualizationForest to write

9 Validation

6.1 Defining and communicating process?Once the tool is developed we can test the methodology’s success with respect to the metrics discussed below. We will use these metrics in three validation strategies:

Student and Professional Charette: Using sample design problems, we will use the tool for some participants, and for others we will not.

Professional Case Studies: We will integrate a few CIFE member design processes and measure the effectiveness of the tool before and after integration.

Survey: After describing the tool in detail, we will survey students and professionals.

We want to measure the tool with respect to the seven above characteristics, and we want to measure improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of design processes after the tool’s introduction.

9.1.1 Is the P-cip tool Transparent, Usable, Sharable, Incentivized, Searchable, Modular, and Scalable?

Perception of UsersWe will survey engineers regarding their use of the P-cip and simply ask them to rank the degree to which the tool meets the seven characteristics listed above.

Frequency of P-cip UseTo supplement the interviews, we will include a hit count on the P-cip browser. Using a pilot project, the counter will track how often the site is accessed. As engineers’ use of the tool is voluntary, their use demonstrates that the tool is incentivized and usable.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes12

Interoperability Link DevelopmentThe browser will measure the number of automated interoperability links created by engineers. This metric demonstrates that engineers are incentivized to develop interoperability solutions.

We will also look at links to see whether they are being developed at different levels of detail to measure whether P-cip is scalable.

Interoperability Link SharingThe browser will measure how often engineers copy and paste process links into their projects. This copying represents process knowledge sharing, which verifies that the tool is sharable. It also confirms that the tool is searchable, because engineers would not be able to copy other processes if they could not effectively search and find an appropriate process. The metric also measures transparency, because engineers would not use other processes unless they understood them. Finally, link sharing shows that the tool is sufficiently modular such that links in one process can be copied and applied to another process.

6.2 Integrating and optimizing process?9.1.2 Are design processes more efficient and effective?

Percentage of Time Spent on Non-Value Added WorkAs engineers use the browser, we will prompt them to track time spent recreating information already present in a different format divided by total time spent on design. A reduction in non-value added work indicates increased efficiency.

Number of Design Options ConsideredWe will assume that the quantity of iterations is indicative of the effectiveness of the design process. A design process that permits wide exploration of the design space improves the chances that the optimal design will be found.

Time per design optionEngineers may choose not to run more iteration, but instead just be more efficient. If times per design of each option decrease over time, then efficiency is increased.

Quality of Design SolutionHow well are project objectives met (goals and constraints) met?

10 Research Impact

10.1 Industry Contribution: CIFE 2015 GoalsP-cip promotes design process sharing. By bringing together global design processes in a common language, P-cip allows companies to more easily take innovative processes from other countries and appropriately apply them to their design. Sustainability requires design integration. P-cip permits the project team to make more informed multi-disciplinary decisions to ensure that designs meet stakeholder’s sustainability goals.

Project teams rarely fully understand the cost impact of their decisions on other disciplines. By mapping out information for the entire project, participants can conform costs to the budget by avoiding unforeseen design impacts.

Similarly, understanding the impact of design decisions or changes on other disciplines reduce the likelihood of schedule delays. Moreover, increased sharing of design processes and design process integration ensures that the project team is using the best design process available; therefore shortening the schedule.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes13

10.2 Academic ContributionWe will develop a new process model methodology that includes the characteristics discussed above. We will develop new methods for sharing design process knowledge, integrating processes, and visualizing the relationships between the design process and the design space.

11 Milestones

June 2008: Finish Description of toolOctober 2008: Complete first prototype of toolDecember 2008: Complete Student CharettesJanuary 2008: Begin implementation of tool on CIFE member company projects.March 2008: Complete validation process.We need some more work on the schedule

12 Risks

The development of the tool is dependent on the contributions of two computer science graduate students that have yet to be determined.

13 Funding

Project: CEE-FY08-577 Haymake CIFEDepartment: Civil EngineeringPrincipal Investigator: HAYMAKER, JOHN (Asst Prof) - CEAdministrator: Rebuelta, Blanca

Period 1 All Periods09/01/08 - 8/31/2009

09/01/08 - 08/31/09

% Amount Total Amount Haymaker, John (Asst Prof) acad 0

smmr 0 0 0Graduate Students 2008, RA Post-Quals, Grad (Res Asst) acad 50 23,138 23,138

smmr 50 7,638 7,638 2008, RA Post-Quals, Grad (Res Asst) acad 50 23,138 23,138

smmr 50 7,638 7,638 Total Salaries 61,552 61,552Benefits Graduate 2,462 2,462 Total Salaries and Benefits 64,014 64,014Other Costs Materials and Supplies 5,100 5,100Tuition RA Tuition x 2 43,480 43,480 Total Direct Costs 112,594 112,594

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes14

Annual Amount Requested 112,594 112,594

Rates Used in Budget CalculationsBenefit Rates Graduate: UFY09 04.00%;Indirect Cost Rate Special Rate: UFY09 00.00%;

14 Next Steps

Describe the requirement for continuing research after CIFE seed research. Discuss your plan for obtaining external continuation funding. Describe plans to test your results with industry. I think this can be discussed in the “Research Impact” section

15 References

The American Institute of Architects: 2007, Integrated Practice. Available Online: http://www.aia.org/ip_defaultAutodesk, Revit Building Information Modeling: Transitioning to BIM. Available Online:

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/transitioning-to-bim_jan07_1_.pdf.Barrett, D and Grobler, F: 2000, Understanding the different purposes of ifcs and aecxml in achieving interoperability.

Available Online: http://www.iai-na.org/technical/faqs.phpConklin, EJ and Yakemovic, KCB: 1991, A process-oriented approach to design rationale Human-Computer

Interaction 6: 357-391.Conklin, EJ: 1996, Designing Organizational Memory: Preserving Intellectual Assets in a Knowledge Economy,

CogNexus Institute, Available Online: http://cognexus.org/dom.pdfEastman, C: 2007, Building information modeling, What is BIM?, Georgia Tech, AEC Integration Laboratory.

Available Online: http://bim.arch.gatech.edu/content_view.asp?id=402Government Services Agency: 2007, GSA BIM guide overview. Available Online:

http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/GSA_BIM_Guide_v0_60-_Series01_Overview_05-14-07_R2C-a3-l_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

Hargadon, AB and Bechky, BA: 2006, When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work, Organization Science 17(4): 484.

Haymaker, J: 2006, Communicating, integrating and improving multidisciplinary design narratives in Gero, JS (ed) Second International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition. Springer Netherlands, p 635-653

Haymaker, J and Chachere, J: 2006, MACDADI: A methodology for systematically & transparently achieving breakthrough quality. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University Report Number 10-1-2006.

Hippel, von E and Krogh, von G: 2003, Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science, Organization Science 14(2): 209-223.

International Alliance for Interoperability. Available Online: http://www.iai-international.org/Khemlani, L: 2004, The ifc building model: A look under the hood, AECbytes.Lee, G and Eastman, CM and Sacks, R: 2007, Eliciting information for product modeling using process modeling, Data

& Knowledge Engineering 62(2):292-307.MacLean, A et al.: 1991, Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of a design rationale for user interfaces, Human

Computer Interaction 6(3/4): 201-250.McGrew, J: Revit to Radiance (via an expensive translator...), Because We Can. Available Online:

http://www.becausewecan.org/node/190Moran, TP and Carroll, JM: 1996, Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Toast: 2004, Questions about dxf import code for a Revit-to-Blender tool. Available Online:

http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?t=30227Tobias, J and Haymaker, J: 2007, Model-based LCA on Stanford's Green Dorm, International Life Cycle Assessment

Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 2, 2007.Yudelson, J: 2007, LEED-ing the way, Building Sustainability. Available Online:

http://www.building.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?sectioncode=747&storycode=3098129&c=3

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes15

Autodesk Revit Building Information Modeling: Transitioning to BIMor: Revit Building Information Modeling: Transitioning to BIM.

AuthHUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTIONor: 1991, A process-oriented approach to design rationale, HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION 6(357-391.

Demian, P and Fruchter, R: 2004, Comem: Evaluating interaction metaphors for knowledge reuse from a corporate memory CIFE Technical Report.

Eastman, C: 2007, Building informaiton modeling. What is BIM? Georgia Tech, AEC Integration Laboratory.

Government Services Agency 2007, Gsa bim guide overview.

AuthOrganization Scienceor: 2006, When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work, Organization Science 17(4):484.

Haymaker, J: 2006, Communicating, integrating and improving multidisciplinary design narratives in GERO, JS (ed) Second International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition. Springer Netherlands.

Haymaker, J and Chachere, J: 2006, Macdadi: A methodology for systematically & transparently achieving breakthrough quality. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University.

AuthData & Knowledge Engineeringor: 2007, Eliciting information for product modeling using process modeling, Data & Knowledge Engineering 62(2):292-307.

Moran, TP and Carroll, JM: 1996, Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tobias, J and Haymaker, J: 2007, Model-based lca on stanford's green dorm International Life Cycle Assessment Conference.

AuthOrganization Scienceor: 2003, Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science, Organization Science 14(2):209-223.

Haymaker, Koltun Communicating and Integrating Multi-disciplinary Design Processes16