General Buildings Information Handover Guide

General Buildings Information Handover Guide Project Leaders: Kristine K. Fallon, FAIA Kristine Fallon Associates, Inc. Mark Palmer National Institute of Standards and Technology Background • AEC industry learning to achieve integrated information and workflows through the application of IT – saving time and money • Gaps in industry practices, availability of IT tools and data standards to support integrated information and workflows across facility life cycle • Current business practices, including procurement practices and regulatory, insurance and contractual requirements, still present obstacles to integrated work and information flows • Pockets of success and momentum – detailing and fabrication of structural steel – What are the other opportunities? Information Handover Problem • Owners specify unique requirements for the delivery of project information – Different names & structures for common documents, data • AECs spend extra resources to comply with these unique requirements • Insufficient attention to downstream uses and modifications of facility information • Add time and costs to the delivery of capital facilities projects • Delivered information does not always meet requirements of subsequent users – seldom supports all the downstream uses in project and enterprise information systems “The cost of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry: $15.8 billion per year.” - NIST Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide Goal: Framework for consistent delivery of information packages transferred among participants in capital facilities projects. • Part 1 - Strategy for Capital Facilities Industry – NIST, FIATECH, USPI-NL, Fallon Assoc., Fluor, Petro-Canada,… – Strong interest: 2000+ downloads (since Jan. 2006) • Part 2s – Industry Sector Specific Guidelines – – – – – – work processes to streamline, improvement opportunities specific standards, templates, and recommendations deployment path and industry actions General Buildings Process Facilities Infrastructure USPI-NL Data Readiness ONE TO ONE E-HANDOVER External Data Readiness Phases SMALL CLOSED COMMUNITIES INTERCOMMUNITY EXCHANGE EMERGING MATURING INTERCOMMUNITY EXCHANGE 5 Years EXTERNAL PROCESS INTEGRATION Internal Data Readiness Phases INTERNAL PROCESS INTEGRATION SUB PROCESS OPTIMIZATION WORK PROCESS STANDARDIZATION 2-3 Years mark Internal Company Standards International Standards Capital Facilities Information Handover Guidelines - Part 1 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction The Handover Process Facility Life Cycle Information Strategy Determine Handover Requirements 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.4 The Uses of Handover Information Characteristics of Information Packages Information Forms and Formats Metadata Where to Begin Overview Developing the Information Handover Plan Relationship to Facility Life Cycle Information Strategy Handover Plan Contents Storing and Preserving Handover Information 5. The Project Information Handover Plan 6. Implementing the Handover Process 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 8. Appendices Data Forms and Formats Structured, Proprietary Structured, Standard Reusability Unstructured, Proprietary Unstructured, Standard Longevity CFIHG Part 1: Conclusions • Lack of standard approaches costs U.S. industry at least $15.8 billion per year • Common life cycle information strategy for whole portfolio reduces development costs • Information requirements must be driven by the long-term needs of the Owner • Long-term use determines forms and formats – Type – Retention • Structure information packages to support downstream processes • Life cycle strategy must drive project handover plan • Create handover plan before information is created • Implementation must be monitored (managed) General Building Sector Activities • General Buildings IHG to be published Jan. 07 – FIATECH starting Process Industry IHG • • • • Industry review begins Nov. 06 Solicited case studies and input from Advisory Group Input from AIA TAP, NBIMS, AISC Learned from and established linkages to other efforts: – AGC BIM Guide, CIS2, CIFE HUT 600, COBIE, FIATECH AEX, GSA BIM Guidelines, IAI Information Delivery Manual, NBIMS, … • Goal: identify pitfalls, solutions, needed guidance and actions for a broad range of information handovers General Buildings Guide Coverage • • • • • • Purpose Industry Background Key Concepts and Terms Case Study Findings Guidance on Information Handover Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Efforts General Buildings Advisory Panel • • • • • • • • • • AISC Anshen + Allen CH2M Hill DoD Ghafari Associates GSA NBBJ SOM Thornton Tomasetti USACE CERL Chicago Workshop March 8-9, 2006 Objectives • Establish common vision of content and use of GBIHG • Provide case studies and identify topics for the GBIHG – Insights and lessons learned – Barriers to effective information handover • Technical, Economic, Contractual, Cultural – Actions and resources to resolve barriers – Specific types of guidance – Listing of other sources – Recommendations for industry organizations • Assess “domain coverage” by case studies; determine need for obtaining additional ones Chicago Workshop Participants • • • • • • • • AISC - Luke Faulkner CH2M Hill - Rob Dibble KFA - Kristine Fallon NBBJ -Alex Maxim NIST - Mark Palmer SOM - Darren Rizza Thornton Tomasetti - David McLean USACE CERL - Bill East Project Participants Owner Union Square Hotel Club Baptist West Hospital Presbyterian Hospital Harborview Medical 3-school campus Army Aviation Support Wellcome Trust Solder Field Design Lead Design Subs CM GC Subs Fabricators O&M FM X X X X X X Owner Rep Owner Rep Owner Rep X X X X X X No X No X X X No X X X No X =CM X X Not Yet X X X X X X X X X X X X No No X X X X X X X X X X Engine Assembly X Data Exchange Participants (Create, 1Way, 2Way Sharing) Owner Union Sq. Hotel Club Baptist West Hospital Presbyterian Hospital Harborview Medical 3-school campus Army Aviation Support Design Lead Design Subs CM GC Subs Fabricators O&M FM C 2W 1W 1W 1W 1W C C C C-2 2W 2W 2W C-2 2W 1W 2W 1W 2W 1W 1W 2W 2W 1W 2W 1W 1W 1W Wellcome Trust Solder Field Workshop Findings General Buildings: Diverse Motivators • Supply chain strategy – AISC • Designer- or Contractor-led project delivery strategy – Most of the Advisory Panel • Owner-led project delivery strategy – GM – GSA • Owner-led life cycle strategy – COBIE/ DoD CFIHG Part 1: Conclusions • Lack of standard approaches costs U.S. industry at least $15.8 billion per year • Common life cycle information strategy for whole portfolio reduces development costs • Information requirements must be driven by the long-term needs of the Owner • Long-term use determines forms and formats – Type – Retention • Structure information packages to support downstream processes • Life cycle strategy must drive project handover plan • Create handover plan before information is created • Implementation must be monitored (managed) Need to provide guidance for multiple handover strategies • Life cycle information requirements may not be available • Project delivery strategy is delivering impressive results • Project teams are spending a lot of time working out information handover kinks General Buildings: Changes in Work Process Project Phases AIA Documents Emerging Project Phases • • • • • Schematic Design Design Development Construction Docs Bidding Construction • Design Optimization • Construction Modeling – Interferences – Sequences • Building to the Model General Buildings: Who Will Lead? • Industry Organizations Leadership (e.g., AISC) – Research • Business needs • Opportunities – – – – IT development Contract language Marketing and communications Understanding “who” can/should take the lead for agreement on defining “standard components” and “views” • Provides an alternative to expecting the Owners to provide the leadership/catalyst Advisors Identified Barriers • Technological • Commercial • Behavioral Technological Barriers • Software compatibility • Data re-usability, machine interpretability – Effort required to make the information usable by others – Worse in 2-way exchanges • Lack of standard “views” for information • Infrastructure – Wireless access, speed (processing time, bandwidth), appropriate viewing devices – Collaborative tools – Model repository: central model for all of the team: single authoritative source vs. distributed config control of copies of the central model • Persistence of 2D standards • “Hybrid” (part electronic/ part paper) processes vitiate benefits – Disparate levels of IT infrastructure and understanding, e.g. structural engineer vs. construction site Commercial Barriers • Model ownership – Responsibility as the “model integrator” • Is this a “new” responsibility? • See AISC 2005 Code of Standard Practice • Conflicting Business Models • Traditional Process, Phasing and Content of Deliverables – Entrenched expectations – Defining deliverables in this new environment • Need for continuous training (time and money) Behavioral Barriers • Internal staff – Resistance to change – Ability to think/problem solve in new ways • Conservative attitude of some professions resisting new information delivery methods, e.g., some construction managers • Clients expect “More for Less” – Why do you think/expect my model is reusable by you? – If it is, then why shouldn’t you have to pay for the portion of your work that I completed? • Owners must understand and lead Advisors Identify Success Factors • • • • • • • • • Corporate sponsorship Grassroots leadership Buy-in by the team Sophisticated users: skills, process flexibility and tools Transparency + accessibility of information for more people Usability of information across the design team Appropriate QA methods and procedures Enabled downstream efficiencies and automation Ability to know where every component is in the process, e.g., steel pieces - in production, in transit, on site,… • Collaboration, including the trades • Trust • New roles – Model manager USPI-NL Roadmap ONE TO ONE E-HANDOVER External Data Readiness Phases SMALL CLOSED COMMUNITIES INTERCOMMUNITY EXCHANGE EMERGING MATURING INTERCOMMUNITY EXCHANGE 5 Years EXTERNAL PROCESS INTEGRATION Internal Data Readiness Phases INTERNAL PROCESS INTEGRATION SUB PROCESS OPTIMIZATION WORK PROCESS STANDARDIZATION 2-3 Years mark Internal Company Standards International Standards 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 CFIHG Part 1: USPI-NL Roadmap External One to One E-Handover Small Closed Communities Intercoumminty Exchange Maturing Intercommunity Exchange Internal External Process Integration Internal Process Integration Sub Process Optimization Work Process Standardization GSA GSA PBS OCA Established the National 3D-4D-BIM Program OCA issued an RFI to companies providing 3D-4D-BIM services GSA publishes 3D-4D-BIM Guide Volume I: Spatial Validation A Spatial Program BIM becomes min. req. for all major new and modernization projects 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Anshen + Allen Pilot Project Internal BIM Production Initial BIM Collaboration Mainstream BIM Collaboration 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COBIE Project Plan Intelligent Electronic Submittals Capture Equipment Performance Specifications Capture Spatial Requirements Capture Metrics for Equipment Performance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Army Corp of Engineers Initial BIM Capability 90% Internal BIM Adoption BIM Contract Requirement Automation of Life-Cycle Tasks 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Questions for You • What topics/ guidance you would like to see covered? • Are you interested in participating in the industry review?