This document from the American Institute of Architects was mentioned earlier. It is instructive and is one of the few practical documents that mainstream practice could pick up and use as a guide with little financial outlay. It is far more palatable than some of the technical material that is currently extant. The full title is AIA Document E202–2008, Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit (BIM-PE) and it is available from the AIA web site.
There are several notable items at the beginning of the document. The first is that it is in the form of a legal agreement. There are places at the head of the BIM-PE for parties to enter the normal details, name, address and so on that would appear on any standard form of contract. Next, it provides a formal basis for committing parties to a BIM environment by stating that the BIM-PE will be annexed to another agreement, the details of which have to be given. Presumably in the American context this would be appended to a standard Design Bid Build or Design Build contract.
In the UK it would now be possible and more in keeping with Egan and Latham exhortations to append such a thing to a far more collaborative form of contract such as the JCT CE contract, the Strategic Forum for Construction’s Integrated Project Team agreement or NEC3.
The final and most striking declaration is ‘This document has important legal consequences.
Consultation with an attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification.’
Unfortunately, whilst representing a step forward in terms of giving a big boost to the use of BIM methodology, the mood of the document resides in a traditional adversarial world. The BIM-PE then has an initial section on definitions of terms used within the agreement. What BIM means in this context is ‘a digital representation of the physical and functional
characteristics of the Project’; a very loose interpretation of BIM. There then follow three definitions which are central to the whole thesis behind the BIM-PE; ‘Level Of Development’
(LOD), ‘Model Element’ and ‘Model Element Author’.
A checklist of elements similar to the ones which appear in The Architects’ Journal for cost analysis or the BCIS elemental cost structure is used as a framework to define who is going to provide information about each element and the LOD determines to what extent. The definitions also tell us that the Model Element Author is responsible for providing BIM content to the specified level, and any discrepancies with the model should be notified to its author immediately. Normal copyright on model content applies.
Further ‘clauses’ govern the following:
• Managing the model, assumed to be the architect unless otherwise stated.
• Responsibilities for defining model conventions, for example model origin, storage structure, input and output processes, access rights.
• Management of the integration of incoming models.
• Management of clash detection and their resolution.
• Management of archive material.
The next section specifies requirements for the LOD and it identifies five levels which can be used in successive degrees of detail. The first refers to what might be called massing, a level of information where information is provided that is suitable for geometric estimates, approximate cost analyses and scheduling of results. In all five levels there is provision to add other ‘authorised uses’, presumably with agreement between the BIM contributors.
The second covers the same ground except ‘non-geometric information’ could be included, analyses are supplemented by ‘generalized criteria assigned to model elements’, and costing carried out by ‘conceptual estimating techniques’. Schedules may be used to indicate the inclusion of elements over time. Level three specifies that ‘Model Elements are modeled as specific assemblies accurate in terms of quantity, size, shape, location, and orientation.
Non-geometric information may also be attached to Model Elements.’ Again, schedules may be used to indicate the inclusion of elements over time. Level four is as above plus
‘complete fabrication, assembly, and detailing information such that the model is suitable for construction’, proper performance can be analysed, costs are actual and ‘the model can be used to show time-scale appearance of specific elements and systems including
construction means and methods’. Level five is ‘as constructed’ information.
Article four declares that each model author’s content is to be shared with other authors throughout the project. If an author provides information above the LOD then other authors are advised to rely on it only to the extent of the LOD and the next part of the document provides cover indemnity should they do so. This is just a brief description of some of the content of the AIA’s document but several important points can be drawn from its tentative entry into the legalistic arena. At the time of writing there is nothing like this in the UK
published by the professional architecture and construction institutions. If anything exists it is due to the pragmatic approach adopted by any companies who seek to legislate for BIM.
The document shows one of the first attempts to marry IT, BIM in this case, with a legal framework. The declaration at the start advising consultation with an attorney is a typical litigious standpoint displayed in the USA. It would have been better to eliminate the statement, which would have immediately affected the mood of the document; more collaborative language could have been used. This is not a lengthy document, some nine pages long, and therefore its attempt to legislate for everyone and every type of information that might be part of a project is limited and begs many questions, for example: What type of geometry – solids or extrusions? What kind of non-graphic data? How much fabrication, assembly and detailing information? What are satisfactory ‘Levels Of Development’ for specific elements?
In future the AIA Document E208 could be developed to include parametric objects. If so, the extent to which they displayed behaviour and relationships would require further definition of original authors, subsequent authors and virtual authors as well as the
indemnification which might be involved. Given the ascendency of BIM it is only a matter of time before more and more cases appear in the Technology and Construction Court based on BIM itself and which fall outside conventional claims under contract or tort. Will
documents such as this inhibit or encourage a new breed of claim? There is no doubt that it blazes a trail; only time will tell.
fSUMMARY
How do we implement BIM?
Remember a BIM strategy is a business strategy.
BIM must have executive backing.
Identifying the BIM mindset is crucial.
BIM implementation principles apply to any scale of business.
Apply the metrics rigorously.
Choose realistic targets.
Implement as much or as little as is comfortable – overambition will lead to failure.
Phase the integration of BIM into the business.
Keep abreast of technology trends and innovations.
Use the sample metrics to establish where the team stands in terms of collaboration.