BIM: Fixing Australia’s “Broken Circle”

With the recent release of the Australian Construction Industry Forum (ACIF) and Australian Procurement and Construction Council’s (APCC) ôFramework for the Adoption of PTI and BIMö are we still dancing around the inevitability of a BIM mandate?

Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) construction industry bodies and government must welcome the release of a focused framework for Project Team Integration and BIM which ôraises the flagö and progresses the debate on collaborative and productive design, construction and building life cycle management.

ACIF and APCC’s Framework document provides an in depth analysis of the landscape of BIM adoption in ANZ, including reaffirming the 7 work programs that buildingSMART Australasia recommended in 2012. What it lacks however are tangible solutions, clear ownership of commitments to change and a timeline.

Industry needs leadership on BIM. It is heartening to see a clear understanding of the benefits for both government and industry but stronger recommendations on BIM adoption and jurisdictional responsibilities are required. In the framework, there is a hint of powerlessness on the part of industry by saying ôàindustry is but a servant of those who commission new assets…ö It seems service providers are still in a reactive space waiting for their customers to demand the change that is available through new technologies and approaches.

UK Mandate 2016:

When Mark Bew, Chair of the UK Government BIM Working Group, Chairman of the UK Government BIM Task Group and buildingSMART UK, delivered the keynote speech at the buildingSMART Australasia conference in Sydney last year, three critical themes stood out for me:

  1. A sense of urgency and a compelling reason for change was created via a deadline.
  2. UK implementation would not have even started without the appointment of a Chief Constructor, currently Paul Morrell.
  3. The concept that it’s okay for Government to tell industry what it wants as long as it stays away from telling industry how to do it.

What is interesting is that the latter point contrasts to how the Government here in Australia is approaching BIM û generally abstaining from the conversation for fear of interfering with the marketplace and creating red tape. What has been clear for some time and what the UK strategy demonstrates is a definitive need for leadership in order to achieve greater advancements and returns.

In Australia the latest statistics from the ABS tell us that the value of construction work within the Building and Engineering Construction Industry is $215 billion dollars[1], that construction (excluding its service industries) is 8.0% of GDP[2] and employs 1.1M workers or 9.1% of the labour force[3]. Given the comparative statistics that the UK knew at the time of creating the Government Construction Strategy[4] in 2011 û the UK construction sector was 7.0% of GDP, it expended ú110B and it employed 2.0M workers[5] û shouldn’t we be placing a larger emphasis on improving our industry considering it is as large a contributor to our economy and our workforce as the UK’s is to theirs?

Should Australia Make a Date or Continue Organically?

In late 2014 Mitchell Brandtman 5D Quantity Surveyors conducted a straw poll of 137 industry stakeholders with varying degrees of BIM, posing the simple question, ôShould the Australian Government mandate BIM?ö The results showed that over 66% of all respondents said ôYesö to a Government mandate.

Designers generally agree with a mandate (68%) and Contractors agree even more so (83%). Owners unsurprisingly are more reluctant (only 36% agreeing). A breakdown of the results can be viewed here.

Clients will always expect better design within a well-coordinated project that is on time and within budget. BIM simply assists in delivering these outcomes and facilitates the improvement in best practice. The project team should apply BIM because it makes business sense to do so.

The reality however seems to be that customers don’t want to dictate to the supply chain as it might create limited choice and less competition, ôbreakingö the circle of innovation. The supply chain is looking for a guarantee for their investment before they push an innovation that isn’t fully in demand. Australian and New Zealand’s skills and innovations in the field are well documented and respected internationally but if all the stakeholders in the ANZ construction industry are waiting for someone else to act on BIM – is ANZ going to miss one of the greatest opportunities for exporting design and construction services to Asia and the UK as the mandates in those countries take hold.

Missed opportunities are one thing but without a sense urgency will ANZ be exposing itself to more international competition from Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, UK and US as those countries innovate in response to their decisions to mandate?

Fixing the Broken Circle: Industry or Government?

Coupled with the recent release of the Framework, we are also anticipating the imminent release of the ôGuide to Procurement using BIM and PTIö. This document may prove more valuable to assisting industry stakeholders in their adoption and implementation investments and strategies. It will also add further rigour to the Framework’s promise of ôa step by step guideö to address the issues and challenges of BIM adoption and Project Team Integration.

Without clear leadership and ownership however, it is difficult to see how quickly and how extensively a guide will be adopted.

Given that we know that owners are reluctant, why not change the decision stream û say ôYesö to BIM for the benefit of public asset management and in turn the innovations derived from this Government decision will see private sector owners choose BIM and industry stakeholders innovate and evolve or disappear. After all, public sector construction work is only 9.8% of our industry as a whole û just $21B. The chance to improve productivity and output by influencing the other 90.2% of our industry is too big of a chance to pass up.

Only after there is a ôYesö can industry turn its mind to the ôhowö, like engaging with educational institutions to pave the way for our future technology disruptors to emerge and improve the processes and lead Australia in the advancement of BIM and PTI.

For more information please email me direct at