Greg Blain wrote for CCN in May last year discussing an architect’s perspective on building services, here he adds his thoughts on building information modelling featured in last month’s issue.
This article represents the considerations of one particular architect (that’s me) regarding building information modelling (BIM).
I am no BIM specialist but my considerations come from 30+ years in the industry, giving a more general perspective.
Currently, BIM in the building industry is the most advanced design and documentation tool, combining 3D drawing with the collaboration of each separate project consultant, who can contribute their design into the same single graphic model. The model can be extended to construction programming, costing and specialist programs to analyse certain building performances such as energy consumption.
The range of functions that can be incorporated into a specific project BIM is wide ranging and depends on what the project leaders decide. This decision is based on such things as the perceived function benefit, available skills to implement and analyse findings of the functions, regulatory requirements, how advanced that function is and function cost.
If done properly, BIM can be a very powerful tool. The potential power of BIM is mind boggling, utilising ultra-computerisation. It is also widely accepted that BIM is the way of the future in building design and also in building construction and in-use management.
Despite such enormous potential, BIM is still in its infancy, and I estimate it will mature in another eight to 15 years. While governments and some large organisations now stipulate BIM or part BIM capabilities for their projects, the number of architects and associated consultants who can provide something close to near full BIM is limited. Most practitioners are still learning to adapt to BIM.
The struggle to adapt to new technology is nothing new, nor is the tendency for business to rush into new technology. I believe it requires time to consider all aspects of a new technology before committing to it. A new technology needs to be compatible with the goals and aspirations of that particular business, and the cost to install, organise, train and develop with the new technology needs serious consideration.
I would like to give a little historical background to help make my point.
When I started professional life after leaving school in 1978, I began by working as a junior in the offices of various architects and engineers. I was taught, from day one, how to draw with pen and scale rule. Computers were new and used only by professions using a lot of maths, such as accountants and engineers. Drawing was the last office-based activity to be computerised as it was the most difficult to computerise. It would be another decade before computer-aided design (CAD) would become almost standard practice.
I believe I was blessed to enter the profession at that time. I had the old school training of using head and hands.
Similar BIM-like techniques were used in the 1960s and earlier to design and document such amazing buildings as the Sydney Opera House and brilliant machines like the F111 fighter bomber and the spacecraft which took men to the moon. My training and work using head and hands forced me to work things out before they were drawn and that is an amazing skill to have in exchange for a little hard work.
Fast forward to the late 1980s, and computers had entered the realm of the architects’ office. This was the first major shift in practice since the invention of paper. New skills had to be learned and new ways of designing and thinking had to be wrestled with. For me, as a young architect finally off the drawing board and managing projects, it was a true revelation. Not so much in the way things were done, but in the quality of the work produced. The quality dropped dramatically – it was like someone had flicked a switch to doze mode. The quantity/output and skills to operate the computers was there, but not the attention to accuracy. This accuracy was previously demanded up-front using head and hands because it was too inefficient to hand-draw without it and drawings were too hard to correct.
The reduction in accuracy I contribute partly to the ease of being able to amend incorrect computer drawings and also by the increased amount of time required to learn and maintain CAD skills. Technicians now no longer could be productive with a week of hand-drawing training. With CAD they required many months of initial training, then more and more time to keep up to date with computer program changes. Where was the time to spend thinking, hence learning, about buildings?
I need to make it clear that I think the computer for drawing is a marvel, indispensable and something that takes a lot of tedium out of commercial drawing. I do think, however, that a lot of people mistakenly use computers to replace some of the things that they should be doing themselves, like checking documents and thinking about buildings. One of the espoused wonders of 3D drawing and BIM is its ability to coordinate the building structure and services. Why then is it not such a wonder that 30 years ago we were able to do exactly that but without computers in about the same time frames with perhaps a little more labour component?
Much of the BIM publicity has been rosy. Little is said of the huge challenges most architectural practices face in purchasing, training for, implementing and making BIM pay; for which fees will need to reflect. Not only does the architect have to be up to speed, but so too do the associated consultants, contractor and sub-contractors, plus owner (for building management).
The architect also needs to implement energy analytics programs which regulation demands be done by very experienced, highly trained scientists. Other analytics may be required including environmental and waste management, which also need operation by very experienced, highly trained specialists. Where has common sense in designing buildings gone? Does a professional always need computer analysis to justify decisions?
Argument has it that BIM will reduce many if not all of those inaccuracies and inefficiencies of the past, of course without mentioning all the new inaccuracies and inefficiencies created by ultra-computerisation. Errors may be buried deep in computer code, not seen until built. How do you get a second opinion or an independent check of the documents and analytics?
It is said those difficult things of the past will disappear using BIM. This may include things like automatic BCA compliance checking (eg. escape distances), but hasn’t the architect done this at design stage and is it practical or possible for expensive computer programs to keep up with regulation changes?
Also, if say a door changes position on the model, it automatically updates on all drawings – the good thing about doing a change manually is that you see conflicts immediately.
I fully support the use of computers in design and drawing, but why rush into BIM? Unfortunately, as mentioned, computer program manufacturers keep developing, academics keep teaching everything new (that’s what they are paid to do) and government keeps pushing.
The role of program manufacturers is significant: they need to develop to keep competitive. However, this development can have negative effects on the industry. Allow me to explain.
Is ultra-computerisation (requiring high-level, time-consuming training) really necessary for buildings largely built by workers proud of their ‘builders crack’? We are not building spaceships in sterile controlled environments by scientists.
Also, how advanced does computerisation need to be? When I first started learning CAD in 1995, I was astounded by its power. The manual was as thick as my arm. The program included many advanced features including drawing complex shapes (such as a VW Beetle) in contour line format. Architects using this 1995 program would probably have used just five per cent of the program’s capability. That was 17 years ago, yet buildings have not developed since then at the same rate computers have.
Lastly, the impressive and relentless progress by computer program manufacturers, in reality, leaves users struggling to keep up. And users need to keep up because if a potential client sees that they are not using the latest program, the job may be lost.
Government pushes BIM with vigour, but they use it only at the in-use stage. Who cares if government facility managers spend all their day training and using BIM? Their wages are not commercially linked. Also, as government has never existed to be an industry leader, pushing high tech (on a weary private enterprise wanting a government contract) can make government look cutting edge.
BIM is here to stay. However, if misused, it can create such chaos that benefits are lost. It can’t remedy incompetence, no machine can. It isn’t ‘intelligent’, it is a dumb (albeit amazing) machine. It will never replace the astounding computer that is the human brain and struggles to compete against the trained mind.
Unrealistic pressures from program manufacturers, academics and government aside, the real users (private enterprise) can make it work well. But it needs to develop naturally in its own time. With the pressures of those three interest groups, I’m not sure if this can be done.
Please consider this quote from Dr Stephen R Covey, author and business leadership expert: “high tech without ‘high touch’ does not work, and the more influential technology becomes, the more important becomes the human factor controlling that technology”.