Release of the McGraw Hill SmartMarket Report on the ôBusiness Value of BIM in Australia and New Zealandö calls for greater BIM education and for Australian and New Zealand advocates to demand better content and shared data (p. 6)

In late 2013, McGraw Hill conducted 435 online surveys with Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Consultants and Building Owners from across Australia and New Zealand’s construction industry.

The Australia and New Zealand Business Value of BIM SmartMarket Report released today analyses the full range of data received and, in relation to BIM adoption, the levels of experience and collaboration, expected and estimated return on investment and likely future importance and adoption rates of BIM in five years in Australia and New Zealand.

On reading the report and listening to the speakers at today’s Consult Australia Technology Symposium, it is clear that greater sharing of models and data will provide the best incentive to improve the BIM and engage all project team members to return the benefits.

What the client wants:

Over two thirds of respondents reported that working with team members who have BIM expertise improves project outcomes and increases quality (P11).

What we are seeing on the ground is a need to shift the thinking from mandatory BIM implementation (ie. UK model) to best practice design and construction.

The ANZ SmartMarket Report data also suggests that building owners within both the public and private sectors are likely to have the greatest influence on BIM adoption (P7).

Clients will always expect better design and properly coordinated delivery of the project – on time and within budget. BIM is a tool that assists in delivering what the client wants. The technology facilitates the improvement in best practice. The project team should apply BIM because it makes business sense to do so. It generates savings through efficiencies like the development and implementation of any new technology or process should.

What the designer wants:

Canada reports that 89% of contractors æalways or often’ receive models from designers (P6). When it comes to expectations in receiving models from designers in Australia and New Zealand, just 9% hold this view. We rank at the lowest end, well below all other regions. In comparison to the US (44%), South Korea (50%), Brazil (50%) and UK (29%) our real BIM adoption rate falls far short of what we think is happening in relation to BIM take up and real project collaboration.

According to the report, over two thirds of Architects and Engineers are requesting ômore 3D Building Product manufacturer-specific contentö (P6). With the ground swell of take up amongst Architects and Engineers, the report highlights the need for this group particularly to demand content that is searchable and that can be indexed.

When working closely with designers across a range of large and small project, our 5DQS team at Mitchell Brandtman find that the greatest benefit to everyone is reliable data that can be revisioned quickly and accurately as the design develops. The technology allows for this. What is critical to the process is the understanding of the power of this data across the consultancy team and that everyone is aware of its usefulness up and down the chain of supply. Inevitable data anomalies are then able to be identified and rectified collectively and quickly.

What the Contractor wants

According to McGraw Hill’s report, Australian and New Zealand contractors are more likely to focus on whole of project team benefits through improved BIM processes (P21). Contractors rated more highly (in comparison to architects and engineers), better data integration, functionality and interoperability of the software as the factors most likely to increase the BIM benefits for users.

Contractors in Australia and New Zealand also seem to be leading the way in their plans to invest/upgrade IT infrastructure expressing high to very high importance for BIM (P42). More than half of the contractors who responded also plan to invest in developing collaborative BIM processes which McGraw Hill reports is outpacing the average of all other global regions.

What is also evident from the statistics overall is the role of the Contractors. The data supports the view that this group is most likely to be the key drivers of BIM adoption in Australia and New Zealand in the next few years given their calls for greater functionality of the software and more clearly defined deliverables to support BIM (P21).

In our experience when working with Contractors, particularly on large scale commercial and public sector projects, they are focused on IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) and VDC (Virtual Design and Construction) as the means to successfully deliver a project on time and on budget. IPD provides contractors with a softer way to contract. VDC allows contractors to rehearse the build which reduces waste and delivers a leaner project more likely to be on time and within budget.

Contractors want to derisk the project through accurate and fast, updatable documentation. All parties participating in BIM achieve this. Efficiency should be the driver for increased adoption and this is only going to come from greater sharing of project successes, knowledge sharing of work-arounds and software developments and full collaboration across the project team from preliminary design through construction and post construction.

Trades Take Up Fast

Contractors are reporting high proficiency use amongst Mechanical/Sheet Metal/Plumber trade contractors in Australia and New Zealand (P12). It is most likely that these trades can more readily see the immediate financial benefits and process improvements, particularly where they are moving to greater prefabrication (P14).

Given that on a typical building project trades make up approximately 83% of construction costs it is expected that BIM will most likely bring about the most immediate savings and benefits to the subcontractors. This is certainly what we are seeing on our 5D projects.

Engaging Non-Users

When we look more closely at the non-users responses more than two thirds believe that their competitors are using BIM but over 40% of them feel that it is at a low implementation level, of less than 15% of projects (P46). The report points specifically to this being more commonly thought within companies working domestically only.

By contrast, all large Contractors (revenues of $250million+) perceive that their competitors are using BIM and half of those believe it is at a high implementation level.

The top benefit that would influence take up for both non-user Contractors and Architects/Engineers is more accurate construction documents followed closely by improved communication (P47). What is surprising is that amongst the early BIM adopters these are both generally considered as immediate and achievable deliverables when implementing BIM across the project team.

It’s always about industry best practice

The report makes a strong case for greater education amongst domestically focused and small companies in Australia and New Zealand yet to adopt BIM or who are still at a very low level of implementation.

Whilst the strength of the advocacy of BIM in Australia and the number of organisations collaborating and conversing on how to improve it is essential, developing sound business strategy at the individual level to improve ROI is imperative. This can be achieved through better design and model data management and is likely to have a greater impact on adoption rates and encourage best industry practice. Historically this has always remained the greatest incentive for adoption of any new process or technology.

Whilst the industry debates the need for a national standard, what may serve us better is focusing on standardising the elements that can report the ROI coming out of better design and model integration of 4D and 5D.

We also need industry wide education on the best practice benefits of project collaboration along the supply chain. We know early decisions have a high ability to influence time and costs. We need to look beyond the issues of where we should be on the BIM journey and focus efforts on who can influence best practice at the early stages of design. This may create far greater success in leveraging BIM’s benefits throughout the design, construction and post construction phases for those in the project team who choose to adopt.

I recently attended the first BrisBIM event of 2014 along with a full house of 180 other people.

The appeal of BrisBIM lies in the people that attend and the networking opportunities it presents. A wide range of people attend, from Builders, Architects, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors and Technology consultants – it’s rife with interesting BIM conversations. Presenters generally speak openly about their experiences and projects which means there is some good insights especially when hearing from contractors.

Two presentations that I found of particular interest were:

4D Workflows and What’s Missing

Peter Ayre from Lend Lease explained they are making good progress with 4D (tying time and schedules to models) by using Navisworks and linking this back into P6. His experience was that whilst there are a lot of people claiming that they do 4D well, we are yet to see it being used to it’s full potential.

The Road to BIM: The John Holland Story so Far

Donald Cameron (pictured below) and Andrew Mattiske from John Holland also gave a talk that caught my attention. They spoke of the sophisticated system that they utilise on some of their builds where they can scan data from installed materials and are able to produce accurate as built models. Of particular interest to me was their ability to generate progress reports from the model and their inclusion of this data in their progress claims.

One point I continually take away from BrisBIM is how important collaboration is in order to get the most out of our building models. Recently Jennifer MacDonald, currently a lecturer at UTS, wrote a great article on our Blog focusing on collaboration from a research v’s education v’s industry viewpoint (she was a structural engineer for 10 years in the UK as well as Australia and is now a lecturer at UTS), and how important collaboration really is if we are to take BIM and design to the next level. Take a read.

Similarly, below is an exert that I like from Donald Cameron and Andrew Mattiske’s presentation that places collaboration as a cornerstone of positioning the Australian AEC industry in good stead against the threat of global competition:

“From an AEC industry perspective – we’re all in this together. We’re a manufacturing industry to some extent, similarly we’re going to be more and more exposed to the global trends, much the same way that the internet has affected news media. I certainly see that this technological age as having an impact in much the same way that we can design a building here to be made overseas, there’s obviously the competition and threat that the same thing can happen here. And we’ve got to be ready for it. And I see the best way for us being ready is by being integrated and working more collaboratively.”

I would love to hear your feedback on how you and your business are collaborating to get the most out of BIM. Please leave a comment in the box below.

If you’re in Brisbane for the next event on Wednesday 16th April 2014 be sure to come along. See you there!

In the fifth and final installment of David’s BIM Day Out presentation David answers a few questions about classification systems, green design and costs, accurate 3D model geometry and why you must always model the way that the project is constructed.

youtu.be/eq9WkCgytEM

For more information on BIM visit our BIM Advocacy pages by clicking here.

Also, view all parts of this video series by clicking on these links:

• Part 1: What Skills does a 5D QS need?
• Part 2: What is a 5D QS’s methodology?
• Part 3: Contracting & Applying the Methodology
• Part 4: What does BIM mean for Costs?

Be notified the very moment any new videos are posted by subscribing to our YouTube channel:

To understand who owns the savings that come about from Building Information Modeling you need to understand when a contract is formed and where the money is.

David Mitchell, Partner & 5D Quantity Surveyor at Mitchell Brandtman, explains what BIM means for costs in Part 4 of his BIM Day Out presentation. Watch the short video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQVfTd4Vj0

Also take a look at the other Parts in this video series: Part 1: ‘What Skills does a 5D QS need?‘, Part 2: ‘What is a 5D QS’s Methodology?‘ and Part 3: ‘Contracting & Applying the Methodology‘.

As well as our other BIM Cost article: “BIM Cost Benefits: Who Owns the Savings?”

This series of videos is from BIM Day Out where they have more great BIM presentations over at BIMtv. You may also be interested in BIMCrunch.com’s article “BIM Cost Benefits – Who Owns the Savings?”.

In Part 3 of David’s BIM Day Out presentation Partner and 5D Quantity Surveyor David Mitchell talks BIM Execution Plans, Contracting, and Applying the 5D QS Methodology https://youtu.be/hD3_voybM_U

This short video follows on from ‘What Skills does a 5D QS need?‘ (Part 1) and ‘What is a 5D QS’s Methodology?‘ (Part 2).

This talk is from BIM Day Out in Perth where they have more great BIM presentations over at BIMtv.

Partner and 5D Quantity Surveyor, David MitchellBIM Day Out event in Perth on “5D’s of Digital Design, Documentation and Delivery”.

In Part 2 David covers off on the 5D QS methodology. https://youtu.be/9seMRePr6jw

Click here to check out Part 1 – “What Skills does a 5D QS need?” and you can also view more great BIM video’s and presentations at the BIM Day Out’s website.

Be sure to sign up to the Mitchell Brandtman YouTube channel by clicking the red button below to be notified when Part 3, “Contracting & Applying the Methodology”, is released:

Partner and 5D Quantity Surveyor, David MitchellBIM Day Out event in Perth on “5D’s of Digital Design, Documentation and Delivery”.

In Part 1 David covers off on the skills that a 5D QS needs to not only create cost certainty but to also help deliver a successful project.http://youtu.be/ir3ybJt5rRs&w=512&h=308

David also contributed an article to BIMCrunch titled “5D BIM: What Skills does a 5D QS need?” which you can read here. You can also view more great BIM video’s and presentations at the BIM Day Out’s website.

Be sure to sign up to the Mitchell Brandtman Blog (by entering your email address in the box on the right hand side) and be notified as soon as the next part of the presentation is released, titled “What is a 5D QS’s Methodology?”.

For more information please feel free to email David direct.

Follow David and Mitchell Brandtman on Twitter

Late last month I attended ‘The Reveal’ – an announcement of the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct Design Competition. Mitchell Brandtman formed part of the Nikken Sekkei team, led by internationally renowned Architects Nikken Sekkei. Our team’s design scheme progressed into stage 2 of the competition in June this year, shortlisting us with only two other firms out of a total of 75 submissions from around the world.

We knew we had proposed a bold scheme – actually ‘bold and arresting’ in the organiser’s words – and that it would push traditional boundaries and thinking. It was strikingly different yet playful and inclusive. Very Gold Coast, we thought. And I must say that personally, it was some of the most unique and challenging cost planning that I have done in my career!

Here’s what the Jury had to say:

“Nikken Sekkei’s striking design reflected the æweb of water’ which defines both the Gold Coast and surrounds the cultural precinct site.

The web is incorporated, both dramatically and subtly, into the submission’s landscape and built forms. Most spectacularly, a grand æwater stage’, with dimensions of 195.9m x 195.9m, celebrates the founding year of the Gold Coast in 1959.

These twin references, of the city’s founding date and the ubiquitous presence of water û shimmering, flowing, falling û celebrate the site’s location and its coastal character.

Centrally located, the water stage links three landscape zones; nature park to the north, water front to the north east, and the civic field to the south west. A series of smaller landscapes are created as sub-divisions of these three primary zones, such as a rain forest, grass land, water garden and indigenous garden.Dual approaches from a Chevron Island green bridge deliver visitors either to ground-level or the elevated water stage.The five senses of sight, sound, touch, smell and taste are engaged across the site.

The water stage doubles as a multi-purpose performance venue and promenade, offering arresting views of the city skyline and hinterland. Depth of water is cleverly controlled, ranging from only a few centimetres deep to dry, providing opportunities for small and large performance spaces to emerge. It also mirrors a typical æQueenslander’ roof, offering protective shade to the central amphitheatre below.

Both the New Arts Museum, in the form of small, separated pods, and the Living Arts Centre are also partially nestled below the water stage.

In the Living Arts Centre the existing building is retained and enhanced, with two theatres connected by a shared stage accommodating up to 1800 people. At night, its wrapped fly tower, protruding through the water stage becomes a digital screen for outdoor cinema or illumination.

An holistic approach is taken to precinct programming, with the whole site treated as a museum. The covered amphitheatre provides opportunities for mixed programming, with potential for audience viewing both under and on top of the Water Stage”

Unfortunately our team’s scheme did not take out the top prize on the night however was held in high regard by the Jury and competition organisers. We are proud of the concept and how far our team got in the competition. It’s just such a shame that we all won’t be able to see this concept come to lifeà

Congratulations to the ARM Architecture team for their winning design.

For more information on the Gold Coast Cultural Precinct visit the website here: www.goldcoastculturalprecinct.info or feel free to email myself directly.

The BrisBIM End of Year Gathering took place last week at QUT’s ‘The Cube’ – a very fitting location that features one of the world’s largest digital interactive learning and display spaces – part science lab, part digital engagement.

Mitchell Brandtman’s 5D team went along and joined a host of 12 presenters talking for only 2 minutes about projects they had successfully completed. Perhaps “SpeedBIM” should have been theme of the evening?

Besides from the great results achieved on projects all around Australia a highlight came from Tom de Plater of Peddle Thorp Architects who talked about Autodesk’s ‘123D Catch’ software which is a free App that allows you to generate models from pictures using your phone or tablet.

If you’re wondering what’s going on in the pictures below that’s Associate & 5D Quantity Surveyor Matt Hemming checking this new software out – on himself!

Now to test it on something with cleaner geometry! https://youtu.be/OxsmnDKO7D0

We hope to see you at the next BrisBIM event on the 19th Feb 2014 – Put that date in your diary. See you there!

The second article in our Guest Blogger Series comes from Jennifer MacDonald.

Jennifer is a lecturer in Construction Management at the University of Technology, Sydney, and is currently completing a PhD in BIM and collaborative design education at the University of South Australia. She was involved in the survey and analysis work behind the BIM Economic Study and the National BIM Initiative, provided advice on the National Industry Education and Training (NIET) plan and served on the AIA BIM Education Working Group.

With partners at UniSA and Newcastle Uni, she recently completed work on an OLT-funded project to develop collaborative AEC curricula with the aid of BIM tools and processes. The results of this can be found on the codebim.com website, which Jennifer aims to develop further into a resource for all AEC academics. She hopes to improve the way the construction industry functions, one student at a time!

ôTogether we’ll stand

Divided we’ll fall

Come on now people

Let’s get on the ball

And work together

Come on, come on

Let’s work togetheràö

A striking feature of most of the government/client mandates for BIM around the world has been the requirement for Collaborative BIM. In the UK, the requirement is for ôfully collaborative 3D BIM (with all project and asset information, documentation and data being electronic) as a minimum by 2016ö (equivalent to Maturity Level 2 on the ubiquitous ôBew-Richards diagramö). The National BIM Initiative in Australia (yet to get Federal approval but we can hope!) recommends a similar mandate to the UK’s. The US, preferring to use alternative jargon, has stated that ôimproved job-site efficiencyö will be achieved by ômore effective interfacing of people, processes, materials, equipment, and information.

The UK mandate, in particular, has had an energising effect on the uptake of BIM. However, being able to realise the promised efficiency savings relies more on people and process change than any technologies, and the industry is waking up to the fact it has some major cultural problems hindering progress, and that many of these problems originate in the education of our construction professionals.

Construction is a litigious, inefficient industry, with low levels of trust and poor information sharing. More money is used by many firms to resolve disputes than they invest in R&D. The temporary nature of construction teams, comprising members from many different organisations, with clear (and fiercely protected) demarcation lines between occupational roles, has contributed to the negative culture. This lack of trust does not encourage information sharing and collaboration. The construction industry has expressed a need for graduates skilled in collaborative building design and BIM, but, unfortunately, the silo-d culture extends down in to the segregated teaching of students of the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) disciplines.

I should probably enter a disclaimer here: I worked as a structural engineer for nearly ten years in industry in both the UK and Australia, before turning my hand to academia just over three years ago. I like to think, therefore, that I have seen both sides of the research vs. education vs. training debate and have some sympathies towards each side. The main reason I entered academia was that I felt I was bashing my head against the wall trying to make innovative suggestions for change in rather ôold-schoolö engineering companies, only to be ôput back in my boxö repeatedly. ôAh ha!ö I thought, ôAcademia will be a much more collegial place to work, and it will be easier to get collaboration going there! We can get students to learn how to work collaboratively before they get too set in their ways in industry!ö How na´ve was I ???! In fact, I soon realised, most Universities are far more silo-d places to work in than the worst construction teams in industry.

Demolishing the silosà.[Source: http://blog.zenoss.com/]

I am very lucky, however, on entering academia, to win an Office of Learning and Teaching Grant to support the development of collaborative AEC curricula, with the aid of BIM tools and processes. More details of this project can be found on my codebim.com website. The project has finished officially, but I am continuing to work on it as part of my PhD research work. I won’t bore you with the specifics of the PhD thesis, but the gist is that I have developed a framework (very originally entitled the IMAC framework) to assist academics in developing more collaborative curricula across architecture, engineering and construction. It’s currently being tested out on selected courses at UTS and the University of South Australia.

Unfortunately, the traditional silos of the AEC schools can be extremely difficult to bridge. As in industry, mistrust of the other professions also exists in academia. Perhaps surprisingly, for those of you who might believe (looking at our salaries) that academics are above such base concerns as getting hold of filthy lucre, questions can arise as to who is responsible for (and who will pay for) cross-disciplinary courses. The biggest roadblocks in the path of achieving true interdisciplinary education are conflicting student/faculty schedules and lack of compensation for more than one faculty member involved in a course. This problem occurs in universities all around the world. Bureaucracy is holding back progress as always.

Some other problems that need to be addressed in implementing more collaborative teaching practices enabled by BIM are:

• How to fit new topics into a crowded curriculum.
• Reluctance to change teaching habits established over many years.
• For those who may have developed their own niche or expertise, there may be resistance to take on a new subject, about which they are not expert, or to retrain in an area they are not familiar with.
• As the technologies supporting BIM evolve at a rapid pace, academics who have been out of industry for some time may feel overwhelmed trying to keep abreast of them.
• Size of classes. Particularly in Australia, many academics face cminimum class sizes of 80 students (and I have taught classes myself of over 130 students), and the resources and time required to convert large cohort standard lecture-based courses into smaller multidisciplinary teamwork-based courses may seem an insurmountable challenge.

Additionally, governments worldwide are demanding that universities prove their worth as education providers and research generators in order to secure further public funding. In Australia, one of the current ôthreatsö to Universities (apart from teaching and research funding being slashed and the Education Minister expressing his desire that the majority of the remaining funds should be diverted into medical research only) is that they will be ôdemotedö to teaching-only institutions, and no Vice Chancellor wants their university to suffer that ôindignityö. The old mantra of ôpublish or perishö rings as true today as ever. As one academic put it, ôthe work [our] faculty do in the classroom is at once…the most important part of their duties and the part for which they receive the least public recognitionö.

I have frequently heard the refrain ôwe’re not teaching students to press buttonsö being used among educators who believe that BIM is just another CAD tool. The most frightening conversation I’ve had where this statement was made was one senior engineering professor asking ôso does this CAD package run on PCsàor does it need a mainframe?ö Oh yes, he actually thought industry still uses mainframe computers (quite apart from not grasping the point I was trying to make that BIM is not CAD)! Anyway, the argument is at the heart of the ôeducation vs. trainingö debate (and subsequent resistance to teaching ôcomputer technologiesö), where many academics believe that university is for educating (teaching students about theory and critical thinking) and that training can be left up to industry upon graduation. Many AEC educators are unfamiliar with BIM tools and, if they are used at all within courses, educators currently expect students to learn it by themselves, as they do many other software applications. This default approach to learning BIM means students will not develop an understanding of how BIM tools enable them to work effectively with others in a collaborative environment.

The argument also misses the point that BIM is not merely a new CAD tool or computer application: it is a new paradigm and its benefits extend much further than mere visualisation. From an educational point of view, there is little difference between learning manual drafting techniques and learning 2D CAD. However, BIM provides opportunities to model every part of the design and construction process and can allow multiple design proposals to be compared and building performance to be modelled…we simply represent a building with CAD, whereas we construct in BIM. The logic (and understanding) of construction processes and methods under the ôBIMö banner has enormous potential for enhancing the education of our AEC professionals.

My IMAC framework recognises that students need an understanding of the basics of their own disciplines, together with knowledge of effective teamworking practices, and technical understanding of the software tools most relevant to their own discipline, to be able to work effectively on collaborative BIM projects with the other disciplines. Thus, in the early stages, BIM, teamworking and discipline concepts are introduced, culminating in senior-year level IPD studio style classes, replicating real world multi-disciplinary design and construction projects. The aim is to create ôT-shapedö graduates who have breadth of knowledge across the disciplines and deep knowledge of their own. The framework focuses on undergraduate level education, but aspects can be adapted for graduate, TAFE and CPD education too.

One stand-out course worldwide is the Pennsylvania State University’s Architectural Engineering Program, whose students collaborate in multi-disciplinary teams with students from architecture and landscape architecture. This course has won several industry awards, including at least two AIA TAP BIM awards. I had the privilege of visiting Penn State in January, and it was amazing to see the investment in technology and teaching underway there. They have a ôBIM Caveö room with three ôwrap aroundö 3D stereo-projection screens and a SMARTboard for students to collaborate and present their work on. They have also developed a BIM-based construction simulation game (that has built in training lag time for new site workers and adverse weather conditions thrown in etc.) so that students can play around with being site superintendents in a safe environment. Other US programs I visited that are doing great things in the BIM sphere are Colorado State University, Auburn University and the University of Southern California, but Penn State appears to have been the only one to have effectively bridged the 3-discipline divides so far. All the Universities visited, however, have the benefit of having a maximum of 25 students per class. We (both industry and academia) really need to ask ourselves if the typical Australian undergraduate format (particularly in Engineering and Construction Management courses) of packing 90+ students in to a lecture theatre for 3 hours once a week is really going to produce graduates with the skills we want. In the era of MOOCs (massive open online courses), students are also going to start asking why they should be shelling out thousands of dollars to receive the same kind of transmission-style teaching they would receive online for very little cost.

A Penn State Student in action in the BIM Cave [Source: Autodesk BIMCurriculum awards]

Other notable training developments in BIM are the AGC (American General Contractors) BIM course for contractors, and RICS is starting up a BIM accreditation scheme in the UK. The AIA in Australia set up a BIM and Education working group, which has published some preliminary ideas, and the Australian National BIM Initiative makes multi-disciplinary BIM education one of its six key priority targets for assistance. The BIM Task Group in the UK is developing a BIM Learning Outcomes Framework, the aim of which is to produce a standardised BIM curricula for all UK Universities to follow. Luckily for me, I see this as being complementary to my own framework, rather than in competition û the BIM Learning Outcomes Framework specifies particular learning outcomes, whereas my framework suggests how they can be taught by modifying existing courses. Being able to tweak existing courses is important as it gets around the issue of what to leave out if introducing a new course to an overstuffed existing curriculum, and it also expedites change when a new course can take a minimum of 2 years to get from idea to inclusion on the timetable.

To sum up, the current shortage of professionals trained in BIM remains a barrier to the adoption of BIM and collaborative working practices in the industry but universities, industry bodies and other training providers are taking notice. The change to BIM from 2D or 3D CAD is a much bigger leap than was the move from drawing boards to 2D CAD. It requires not only the learning of the new technology/software, but also the learning of a new working culture and the ôun-learningö of old habits and ways of working. BIM requires practitioners to rethink the ways in which they develop designs and manage construction projects. There is a great opportunity for educators to train undergraduates in the use of BIM and the concepts of collaborative design, before they learn about the ôold waysö of working in the industry. These new graduates are likely to have a profound effect on the industry and to lead the charge in adopting BIM and developing innovative approaches to working practices. We just need a bit of support and understanding between academia and industryàas the song says ôcome on, come onàlet’s work togetherö!*

See my website codebim.com for more information on points discussed in this article.

References

• buildingSMART (2012), The National BIM Initiative, Report to DIISRTe, June 2012
• Cabinet Office 2011, Government Construction Strategy, HMSO, London
• Hansen, E.J. (2011), Idea-Based Learning, Stylus Publishing, VA
• Murray, M. & Langford, D. (2002), Construction Reports 1944-98, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford
• NAS (National Academy of Sciences) 2009. Advancing the Competitiveness and Efficiency of the U.S. Construction Industry, National Research Council
• Vogt, B.A. (2010), Relating Building Information Modeling & Architectural Engineering Curricula, Department of Architectural Engineering, Kansas State University, MSc Thesis

*Lyrics from ôLet’s Work Togetherö by Canned Heat (Lyrics by Wilbert Harrison)