85,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
A systematic Building Information Modeling (BIM) framework features cutting-edge use cases and competencies for students and professionals pursuing BIM careers.
Developing BIM Talent: A Guide to the BIM Body of Knowledge with Metrics, KSAs, and Learning Outcomes leads readers through the process of implementing a state-of-the-art BIM training and education program. Authored by a team of celebrated and highly qualified scholars and practitioners, this exciting new BIM education and workforce development guide offers a roadmap that navigates readers through the comprehensive BIM metrics and KSAs detailed in the BIM Body of Knowledge sponsored by the Academic Interoperability Coalition (AiC). Developing BIM Talent offers:
- A solid foundation and guidelines for educators and practitioners for starting or enhancing a BIM curriculum or training program
- Templates, expert interviews, and case studies that provide in-depth knowledge and lessons learned that can facilitate process changes and strategic action plans
- Strategies for standardizing emerging BIM job tasks, descriptions, and methods for benchmarking performance
This guide to contemporary and comprehensive metrics of BIM competency is an essential resource for corporate trainers and instructors teaching BIM, human resources professionals charged with recruiting BIM talent, as well as leadership interested in credentialing and BIM certification programs.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 613
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Foreword
Preface
List of Abbreviations
1 Call for a BIM BOK
CHAPTER SUMMARY
1.1 THE BIM JOURNEY AHEAD OF US
1.2 THE MANY DIMENSIONS OF BIM: WHY BIM IS REVOLUTIONARY
1.3 OVERARCHING GOALS OF THE BIM BOK
REFERENCES
2 BIM BOK Development
CHAPTER SUMMARY
WHAT IS A BOK, AND WHAT IS THE BIM BOK?
2.1 BIM BOK FOUNDATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
2.2 BIM BOK TASK DEFINITIONS AND KSAs
REFERENCES
3 BIM Education and Talent Procurement
CHAPTER SUMMARY
3.1 BIM EDUCATION UNDER GLOBAL BIM PREVALENCE
3.2 BIM TALENT PREPARATION AND PROCUREMENT
3.3 BIM MATURITY AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
3.4 A PRIMER ON BIM BOK USE CASES
REFERENCES
4 Principles of the BOK-Informed BIM Instruction
CHAPTER SUMMARY
4.1 A REVIEW ON BIM CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
4.2 PRINCIPLES OF THE BOK-INFORMED BIM INSTRUCTION
4.3 BIM PEDAGOGY AND LEARNING ACTIVITY DESIGN
4.4 BOK-INFORMED BIM LEARNING AND TRAINING MODULE DESIGN
REFERENCES
5 BIM BOK–Informed Workforce Planning and Development
CHAPTER SUMMARY
5.1 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND THE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
5.2 BIM BOK FOR WORKFORCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
REFERENCES
6 Future of BIM BOK
CHAPTER SUMMARY
6.1 WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
6.2 BIM BOK EVOLUTION AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
6.3 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
REFERENCES
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
TABLE 1.1 List of 50 BIM Use Cases by Project Phase Categories Source: Dana Smit...
Chapter 2
TABLE 2.1 Classification of Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge Domains and Educational ...
TABLE 2.2 Exemplary BIM Frameworks and Major Dimensions
TABLE 2.3 A Combinatory Multicriteria Evaluation Metrics for Levels of Agreement
TABLE 2.4 Entry-Level BIM Professional's Competency – Designer
TABLE 2.5 Entry-Level BIM Professional's Competency – Contractor
TABLE 2.6 Middle-Level BIM Professional's Competency – Designer...
TABLE 2.7 Middle-Level BIM Professional's Competency – Contractor...
TABLE 2.8 Full Performance Level BIM Professional's Competency
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 Length of Time of BIM as Part of the Business Portfolio by Company Typ...
TABLE 3.2 BIM Contribution to Preceding Fiscal Year's Annual Revenue
TABLE 3.3 Typical Sources for BIM Recruitment by Company Type
TABLE 3.4 Desired SLOs for College BIM Education
TABLE 3.5 Areas of interest required in a minimum BIM. Source: Adapted from NIBS...
Chapter 4
TABLE 4.1 A Quick Review of Research Literature on BIM Curriculum Development an...
TABLE 4.2 Job Task Definitions
TABLE 4.3 BOK Curriculum Development Process
TABLE 4.3 Task 1 Results
TABLE 4.4 Conceptual Estimate
Chapter 5
TABLE 5.1 Business Goals and BIM Use Mapping
TABLE 5.2 BIM Competency or Skill Gap Analysis
TABLE 5.3 Designer: Entry LOP
TABLE 5.4 Designer: Middle LOP
TABLE 5.5 Designer: Full LOP
TABLE 5.6 Contractor: Entry LOP
TABLE 5.7 Contractor: Middle LOP
TABLE 5.8 Contractor: Full LOP
TABLE 5.9 Facilities Manager and Operator: Entry LOP
TABLE 5.10 Facilities Manager and Operator: Middle LOP
TABLE 5.11 Facilities Manager and Operator: Full LOP
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
FIGURE 1.1 Comparison of project phases.
FIGURE 1.2 The data, information, knowledge, and wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy....
FIGURE 1.3 bSI BIM use case categories.
FIGURE 1.4 Process of defining use cases.
FIGURE 1.5 Process map for architectural precast showing use cases.
FIGURE 1.6 The BIM BOK matrix.
FIGURE 1.7 Queen's Wharf Brisbane.
FIGURE 1.8 Information flow for Queens Wharf project.
FIGURE 1.9 Existing Conditions Model.
FIGURE 1.10 Information Flow Jinxiong High-Speed Railway.
FIGURE 1.11 Visualization of FMZ Leinefelde.
FIGURE 1.12 3D Coordination of FMZ Leinefelde.
FIGURE 1.13 Combined BIM use cases of BSI 2018–19 awards projects.
FIGURE 1.14 Time value of information in different BIM implementation scenar...
FIGURE 1.15 Cost impact of design decisions on a project's life.
Chapter 2
FIGURE 2.1 The original and revised representations of Bloom's taxonomy.
FIGURE 2.2 BIM at the nexus of knowledge, competency, education, and researc...
FIGURE 2.3 The proposed BIM BOK representation framework.
FIGURE 2.4 The steps in the DACUM process.
FIGURE 2.5 Delphi study panelists' profiles. (a) Job titles currently held. ...
FIGURE 2.7 Likert score mapping of importance rating (median) of BIM BOK lin...
FIGURE 2.8 Consensus mapping with achieved LOA of BIM BOK line items.
FIGURE 2.9 Alignment of use case matrix, performance levels, and Bloom's tax...
Chapter 3
FIGURE 3.1 Comparison between P1 and P2 respondents on the length of time th...
FIGURE 3.2 Study II: Frequency of AECO company participation in projects man...
FIGURE 3.3 Study II: BIM contribution to the company's annual revenue....
FIGURE 3.4 Study III: Frequency of AECO company participation in projects ma...
FIGURE 3.5 Study III: BIM contribution to the companys annual revenue.
FIGURE 3.6 Study II: Newly hired type 1 and type 2 employees.
FIGURE 3.7 Study III: Newly hired type 1 and type 2 employees.
FIGURE 3.8 Study II: Dedicated future BIM positions to be recruited.
FIGURE 3.9 Study III: Type 1 and type 2 BIM positions and job openings budge...
FIGURE 3.10 Root concepts behind the CMM.
FIGURE 3.11 CIFE's VDC scorecard areas and dimensions defined.
FIGURE 3.12 BIM Competency Assessment Tool (BIMCAT) framework.
FIGURE 3.13 Backward BIM curriculum design based on the BIM BOK.
FIGURE 3.14 Benchmarking of BIM job qualification with the BIM BOK.
Chapter 4
FIGURE 4.1 Case example 1 alignment of the BIM BOK to the LOPs an...
FIGURE 4.2 Case example 2 alignment of the BIM BOK to the LOPs an...
FIGURE 4.3 Case example 3 alignment of the BIM BOK to the LOPs an...
FIGURE. 4.4 Pedagogy and learning activity design with emerging technology....
FIGURE. 4.5 Task 3 results.
FIGURE 4.6 BIMStorm OKC project site land area.
FIGURE 4.7 Street view looking south.
FIGURE 4.8 Early design activities.
FIGURE 4.9 Value engineering preconstruction activity.
FIGURE 4.10 Design elements from team solution.
FIGURE 4.12 Critical steps in part 1 of the design process.
FIGURE 4.11 Structure of the BIM instruction design template.
FIGURE 4.13 Critical steps in part 2 of the design process.
Chapter 5
FIGURE 5.1 Workforce planning and succession model framework.
Chapter 6
FIGURE 6.1 Road map to BIM talent development.
FIGURE 6.2 Who drives change in the AECO industry?
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
x
xi
xiii
xiv
xv
xvii
xviii
xix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
102
103
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
DEVELOPING BIM TALENT
A Guide to the BIM Body of Knowledge with Metrics, KSAs, and Learning Outcomes
Wei Wu
Glenda K. Mayo
Tamera L. McCuen
Raja R.A. Issa
Dana K. Smith
Copyright © 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey
Published simultaneously in Canada
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with the respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom.
For general information about our other products and services, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Names: Wu, Wei (Professor of building construction), author.
Title: Developing BIM talent : a guide to the BIM body of knowledge with metrics, KSAs, and learning outcomes / Wei Wu, Glenda Mayo, Tamera McCuen, Raymond Issa, Dana Smith.
Description: Hoboken, New Jersey : Wiley, [2021]
Identifiers: LCCN 2020055780 (print) | LCCN 2020055781 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119687283 (hardback ; acid-free paper) | ISBN 9781119687306 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119687320 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Building information modeling.
Classification: LCC TH438.13 .W93 2021 (print) | LCC TH438.13 (ebook) | DDC 690.0285—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055780
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055781
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Images: © olaser/E+/Getty Images
Foreword
Over the past 15 years, Building Information Modeling has evolved from an interesting novelty to a central paradigm for the future of building project delivery. Many of the world’s most visible projects have been achieved with teams and press lauding the central role of the paradigm in their successful completion. Mature products exist in the market, capable of delivering on professional projects of virtually any scale, typology and regional differences. Industry surveys have compiled professional firms’ proud declaration of 50%, 80% or higher implementation of BIM in their portfolio of work. And BIM training courses are some of the most highly sought out at any architecture or building construction program. In the public discussions of these professional firms, software companies and academic programs, the promise of BIM as a central paradigm of practice is spoken of as an inevitability for practice.
Behind these headlines, however, the success of BIM is more nuanced. In design practice BIM has become and effective approach to the documentation of projects, but only in so far as to coherently produce traditional two-dimensional drawing sets. Contractors dismiss the validity and value of design team models for construction and often start from the contract drawings in reconstructing design team’s intent into constructible models. Once developed, these models are often used simply for coordination and schedule visualization if they are used at all. Owners dutifully mandate the delivery of models as part of final as-builts, but once delivered have limited use for the data provided. Despite the hype, and the true incremental evolution of practice, the industry remains largely mired in traditional documentation and associated methodologies.
The promise of BIM is large. For an industry that is often disparaged as plagued by low productivity and innovation relative to other sectors, BIM offers an obvious panacea. The promise of an integrated, high fidelity data, developed and consumed in a distributed network across the supply chain, suggests a gateway to the larger possibilities of a connected, data driven and transformed world of integrated design, delivery and even operations of an increasingly intelligent built world. The digitally driven, disruptive transformations of other industries – and the associated massive monetization, value and wealth creation - suggest obvious parallels of opportunity and effect. And the visible examples of industry integration from parallel manufacturing sectors provide clear roadmaps for the technological adoption and transformation of similar industries. The promise of a connected, industry prevalent platform of data driven innovation promises a wealth of new possibilities that startups and innovation ventures can build upon. But despite the obviousness of the potential industry transformation through technology, data and market integration, and the true and demonstrable success stories, the true story on the ground remains only a suggestion of the future possibilities.
The fact is, BIM is hard. Not “rocket science” hard so much as “rebuilding the airplane while flying” hard - where the airplane is the size of an industry. The difficulty springs not simply from the technical complexity of approach, although indeed a broadly distributed level of technical competency beyond the industry mean is required. But rather it is that the true success requires so many parts of practice to be retooled at once in order for the true cross project coherency to emerge. The entrenched impediments to change during the course of a project, with whole scale practices retooling from contracts to means of production both physical and digital – overwhelm the potential for visibility, confidence, and process coordination. The signature characteristics of the building project – a one-time formation of an integrated team, purpose built for a single project with a single pass through and one change to get things right, significant risk in going outside the box and a ready at set of “safer” conventions to fall back on, and limited incentive for any single member of the team to break out and assert change either individually or collectively make it far too easy to revert to traditional practices when the going gets tough. The true, cross project successes have come on projects of overwhelming aspiration and complexity, where traditional processes would clearly fail, or through emerging whole scale alternative modes of production including the increasing fascination of manufactured building.
This disconnect between possibility and actuality trickles down to education. BIM is difficult to teach, not because of any particular inherent complexity to the software. The “digital native” generation is effortlessly facile at accumulating the picks and clicks skills of modern software, and a healthy diet of first person video games from Minecraft to Grand Theft Auto have immersed the younger generations in the world of 3D virtual world making and manipulation. 3D modeling has become the first tool that students reach for in developing designs, more naturally familiar than the idiosyncratic and unnatural cannon of orthographic and perspective drafting. So too are the practical mechanics of drawing, modeling, section and quantity extraction well within students’ capabilities.
The problem in BIM education is that the true potential of BIM lies in the connected, collaborative workflow across disciplines; and in fact in the disruption of traditional boundaries and cannons of traditional disciplinary functions. The baroque practices behind the features and functions codified in BIM software of instruments of service and contractually defined function are not second nature to students who have not yet practiced professionally, nor do these functions and their limits spring from any discernable first principles. At the same time the true potential of integrated project delivery offered by the paradigm require speculation beyond current prevailing practices. It is this aspect of process innovation – of retooling a set of existing conventions founded on layers of precedent and prescription rather than performance, a rethinking of a set of conventions whose origins are buried in layers of historical sediment, that are required to effectively project the possibilities of the paradigm. Indeed, BIM education suffers because of the potential obviousness to students – of course developing a project in full three dimensions rather than abstractly connected quasi spatial, partially symbolic documentation makes sense, but the vestiges of that past set of practices that are infused throughout the conventions encoded in software present a context less obvious and less compelling than the future possibility – and, within the context of studio practice, reality – of direct connection between model and realized artifact.
It is into this current state of play – between the pressure of an industry still riddled with siloed disciplines, arbitrary boundaries and perplexing sub-optimized practices, and an educational context that must instill preparation in and respect for the virtues of this disconnected landscape while simultaneously promoting out of the box thinking, that Developing BIM Talent arrives. The authors have taken on a both herculean and practical agenda to establish a unifying methodology for decomposing, delivering, and potentially reconstructing the BIM agenda for training and professional practice preparation in higher education. Over fifty “use cases” for BIM have been identified that break down the spectrum of BIM enabled practice into discrete, analyzable modules. A series of dimensions have been identified by which to categorize these modules in terms of skills and capabilities required of both the individuals and the firms and projects that provide the context of application. A detailed pedagogical program for assessing needs and capabilities, identifying gaps and delivering knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) is developed in this framework. This framework is provided in the context of a broad understanding of the larger knowledge research, assessment and delivery constructs of the broader pedagogical field. Real world case studies lend evidence of the practical applicability of the approach. The authors’ own decades long experience at the forefront of the development of BIM practice provide context for the evolutions of practice leading up to the development of this approach.
At a practical level Developing BIM Talent intends to provide a clear and straight forward approach to developing, organizing and delivering BIM knowledge, skills and abilities to a broad market in search of a path forward to achieving the promise of a digitally enabled industry. Their larger aspiration is to provide practice wide organizational, training and certification structures that can cut across the fragmentation in practice. I wish the authors – and the readers of this text who chose to implement the guidance provided – success in these endeavors.
Dennis Shelden, Ph.D. AIA
Director, Associate Professor in Architecture
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Preface
The societal value of a quality-built environment is essential to life itself. Today, we can provide the bare necessities of potable water to everyone on the planet, along with food to feed everyone. Nevertheless, thousands die annually because of the lack of either or both. Why is that so? It appears that there is not the will to change how we as humans do business.
The providers of facilities and infrastructure deal with a similar scenario, albeit possibly not on the same catastrophic level. The architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) industry – and its broader ecosystem – erects buildings, industrial structures, and lays the infrastructure that is the foundation of our economies and is essential to our daily lives. It has successfully delivered ever more challenging projects – from undersea tunnels to what seem to be impossibly tall skyscrapers. However, the industry also has performed unsatisfactorily in many regards for an extended period. The AECO ecosystem represents 13% of global gross domestic product but has seen a mediocre productivity growth of 1% annually for the past 2 decades. Time and cost overruns are the norm, and overall earnings before interest and taxes are only around 5.5 percent despite the presence of significant risk in the industry. Even worse, the industry operates with as much as 50% waste, losing billions of dollars due to the lack of interoperability, meaning that we do have the capacity to accomplish much more, yet inadvertently choose to squander that opportunity. We waste building materials, time, energy, and natural resources and contribute more than one billion tons of waste to landfills.
While some action can take place sooner than later, this long-term issue will not be resolved quickly and requires systemic change. This change needs to begin with education. Education today, for the most part, rightly responds to the needs of the practitioner who responds to the requirements of the owner. The education change does not need to be in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics alone but applies to every aspect of the process.
We need to produce individuals who have elevated respect for the planet in general – not necessarily short-term-focused activists as much as better businesspeople. We must cultivate leaders who can see the big picture and understand the impact of what they do today related to the built environment on the occupants of the planet for the generations to come. While we cannot affect all aspects of the aforementioned issue, the serenity prayer may provide a guide to us to the things we can accomplish: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. Hence, we plan to take on the built environment, the AECO industry, and AECO education specifically.
The need to change AECO education is the underlying goal of this book, specifically the education related to building information modeling (BIM). While this concept has many facets that will be explored in the book, it is the driving force. The past 2 decades have seen a paradigm shift from representation-based technologies known as computer-aided design (CAD) to information-rich database technologies known as BIM. This paradigm shift continues to change the way industry designs, builds, and operates buildings and infrastructure, which creates a rapidly and steadily growing market demand for BIM talent.
When looking at the workforce, the use of BIM and other digital tools bring with them new skill requirements and eventually could change AECO jobs. Traditionally, higher education has played pivotal roles in fostering the AECO industry in innovation-driven market transformation. While in some cases faculty research leads to practice change, most faculty who teach emerging technologies are challenged to keep up with all of the changing practices. Given the significant advancements achieved in BIM education during the last decade among the nation's top universities, a substantial number of institutions with limited resources are still struggling with developing robust BIM curricula and instilling BIM competency in students to meet industry employers' expectations.
Faculty across the country have developed BIM coursework and curriculum without a baseline or shared understanding about what knowledge, skills, and abilities constitute BIM competency. Furthermore, once classes are developed, faculty continue to be challenged to keep up with rapid changes in technologies and workflows as the industry continues to evolve, adopting new technologies and developing new BIM uses. Existing educational research on the integration of BIM into the college curriculum has focused on student learning and overlooks the need for faculty development. It results in a gap of knowledge on how faculty preparedness for BIM course design, instructional pedagogy, and learning assessment may impact the dissemination of technological advancement in higher education and the capability of AECO programs to keep up with transforming industry workplace competency requirements.
On the same boat are the corporate trainers, who are usually BIM champions and technology evangelists in AECO companies and organizations. They represent the state-of-the-art BIM practice in business processes that shape the companies' BIM uses. However, the highly specialized and fragmented business environment in the AECO industry could make corporation-based continuing education and on-the-job training of BIM inherently siloed. Individual companies may practice only a fraction of the continuously growing portfolio of all 50-plus BIM uses, whereas digital collaboration and integrated project delivery have arisen with strong momentum in the AECO industry.
This book is written for both higher education faculty and corporate trainers. It perceives BIM education to encompass any life cycle or a holistic view of the AECO industry. Thus, the BIM education transformation will need to affect all levels from entry-level to mid-career to full-performance practitioners. The foundational information provided in this book should be applied to all levels.
The first chapter provides some historical context and a big-picture view of how the implementation of BIM is progressing in the industry. It provides a few case studies documenting a baseline state of the art in the industry at the time the book was written so that over time we can see progress. It also describes how the Academic Interoperability Coalition arrived at the point of developing the body of knowledge (BOK) for BIM.
The second chapter walks through the development of the BOK and examines the very concept of a BOK and how it relates to existing norms in education, such as Bloom's taxonomy. The chapter discusses the journey required for students to prepare themselves for a meaningful role in the workforce. It then describes in detail the Delphi process the team conducted to develop the job task definitions and, ultimately, the BOK.
Chapter 3 presents an overview of current practices of BIM education and talent procurement. It looks in-depth at a series of survey studies that were conducted to explore the dynamics among college BIM education, industry talent needs and recruitment, and students' career development. This chapter also reviews the various tools available to assess BIM capacities and maturities of the practitioner, the project, and the organization. Despite the practical value of these individual tools, a unified framework seems to be missing. The BIM BOK, therefore, is expected to lead to a more meaningful and promising practice of BIM education, training, certification, and credentialing.
The next chapter, Chapter 4, delineates the principles of the BOK-informed BIM instruction. Readers will obtain a thorough understanding of the logical steps they need to apply the BIM BOK in developing specific BIM instruction. The chapter also helps the readers recall some of the foundational learning theories in instructional design. The BIM BOK job task definitions are the backbone of curriculum design, which are thoroughly discussed in this chapter with case studies. From this information, educators and corporate trainers can develop a more informed and outcome-based BIM learning and training curriculum. At the end of this chapter, the readers will find handy design templates to help them start with BIM learning and training module design.
Chapter 5 continues the workforce planning and development discussion by looking specifically at the four roles laid out for the BIM BOK: designer, contractor, facility manager, and consultant. For the consultant, it was discovered that they had subroles that would likely need more development in the future, as there could be expert consultants specific to a discipline, a consulting role that dealt with a broader life cycle scope, as well as a consultant that was in a supporting role, such as the role of cybersecurity for BIM. The knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) for the designer, contractor, and facility manager roles are also included for each level of performance expected of practitioners.
The final chapter reinforces that this is but the first step in a rather long journey for the AECO industry to reinvent itself and to mature to the point where collaboration and interoperability are the way of doing business. As the industry matures and innovation occurs, education must keep pace. Hence, continuous improvement will be the norm. It is hoped that the BIM BOK–informed education and training developed to deliver this book will be the foundation as well as the guiding path on which progress will travel.
The authors wish to thank all of the people involved in this process, not only those who participated in the various studies and surveys but also all of those educators who will work to apply these strategies to help transform and guide the AECO industry into the connected information age. The COVID-19 crisis has dramatically accelerated the AECO industry's disruption that started well before the crisis. In such times, it is more important than ever for us to find a guiding path to navigate the uncertainties and make the bold, strategic decisions to emerge as a winner. There is much work yet to accomplish. Now is the time to start.
List of Abbreviations
ABET
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
ACCE
Accreditation Council for Construction Education
ACE
Alliance for Construction Excellence
AECO
Architecture, Engineering, Construction, and Operation
AGC
Associated General Contractors of America
AIA
American Institute of Architects
AiC
Academic Interoperability Coalition
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
ARE
Architect Registration Examination
ASC
Associated Schools of Construction
ASCE
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
AXP
Architectural Experience Program
BBWG
Better Buildings Workforce Guidelines
BCF
BIM Collaboration Format
BIM
Building Information Modeling, Building Information Model, Building Information Management
BIMCAT
BIM Competency Assessment Tool
BIMe
BIM Excellence
BLS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
BOK
Body of Knowledge
BOMA
Building Owners Management Association
BPM
BIM Proficiency Matrix
bSI
BuildingSMART International
BSI
British Standards Institution
BXP
BIM Execution Plan
CAD
Computer-Aided Design
CBD
Central Business District
CFTA
Campus Facility Technology Association
CIFE
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
CIOB
Chartered Institute of Building
CMAR
Construction Management at Risk
CMM
Capability Maturity Model
CMM/SE
Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model
CMMI
Capability Maturity Model integration
CMMS
Computerized Maintenance Management System
COAA
Construction Owners Association of America
COBie
Construction–Operations Building information exchange
COBIT
Control Objects for Information and Related Technology
COOP
Continuation of Operations Plan
CSC
Construction Specification Canada
CSI
Construction Specification Institute
CURT
Construction Users Roundtable
CWCC
Commercial Workforce Credentialing Council
DACUM
Developing a Curriculum
DB
Design–Build
DBB
Design–Bid–Build
DfM
Design for Maintenance
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DR
Disaster Recovery
EAC
Engineering Accreditation Commission
EIR
Employer's Information Requirements
FEA
Finite Element Analysis
FM
Facility Management
GSA
General Service Administration
HR
Human Resources
I-CMM
Interactive Capability Maturity Model
ICE
Institute of Civil Engineers
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
IDM
Information Delivery Manual
IDP
Internship Development Program
IEC
International Electrotechnical Commission
IFC
Industry Foundation Classes
IFMA
International Facilities Management Association
IPD
Integrated Project Delivery
IPMA
International Personnel Management Association
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
ITIL
Information Technology Infrastructure Library
JTA
Job Task Analysis
KMA
Key Maturity Areas
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
KSA
Knowledge, Skills, and Ability
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOI
Level of Implementation
LOP
Level of Performance
MEP
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MVD
Model View Definition
NAAB
National Architectural Accrediting Board
NBS
National Building Specification
NCARB
National Council of Architectural Registration Boards
NIBS
National Institute of Building Sciences
NBIMS-US
National BIM Standard-United States
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NSPE
National Society of Professional Engineers
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OPM
Office of Personnel Management
P-CMM
People Capability Maturity Model
PAS
Publicly Available Specification
PCA
Principal Component Analysis
PCI
Precast Concrete Institute
PPI
Past Performance Indicators
QTO
Quantity Takeoff
RFP
Request for Proposal
RICS
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
ROI
Return on Investment
ROU
Role of User
RTU
Rooftop Unit
SCAMPI
Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement
SEI
Software Engineering Institute
SLO
Student Learning Outcome
SME
Subject Matter Expert
TAP
Technology in Architectural Practice
TCO
Total Cost of Ownership
TOK
Type of Knowledge
UFGS
Unified Facilities Guide Specification
VDC
Virtual Design and Construction
1Call for a BIM BOK
CHAPTER SUMMARY
This first chapter aims to provide educators, trainers, employers, and practitioners the background as to why developing building information modeling (BIM) talent is a significant yet unfulfilled undertaking of the journey to implement BIM in the architecture, engineering, construction, and operation (AECO) industry. It discusses several ancillary supporting and related efforts going on in the industry that have a significant impact on the approaches developed and elaborated throughout the book. The expectation is that the industry will continue to evolve and improve, yet the fundamentals presented in this book are foundational and are critical for future advancement. They will continue to be essential to the long-term success of current and future practitioners. This effort is certainly not specific to the United States but applies to a much broader global community of practice that is learning, implementing, and advancing BIM. Practitioners around the world need to share a common understanding not only of their roles but also of the roles of all others involved in the process of delivering the built environment.
1.1 THE BIM JOURNEY AHEAD OF US
Historically a building information model used for design has acted primarily as a 3D visualization tool that helps eliminate clashes between design elements such as beams intersecting with ductwork. This activity is possible because a building information model is a mathematical description of a facility or infrastructure asset. In the AECO industry, many stakeholders remain independently focused on BIM uses for project phasing and scheduling. The business processes have been developed in silos over time when individual practitioners focused on their efforts independently of others as much as possible. For example, with the traditional design–bid–build (DBB) project delivery method, contracting for design and contracting for construction are two separate transactions, while the only information passed between the designer and contractor is a set of blueprints and specifications. Although certainly other project procurement and contracting models are in place today, DBB remains the dominant approach, especially in public projects. Even fewer are sharing information across the project life cycle to include facility management (FM) professionals. The consequence of this business paradigm is that BIM has significant yet mostly untapped potential for defining information flows throughout the AECO industry, including the supply chain based on new business process models. To date, individual practitioners independently come to a level of understanding of BIM predicated on their company's level of innovation, experimentation, and risk tolerance.
Education is the key to creating a shared understanding and expanding the capability of BIM by profoundly changing the workflow and business processes associated with the AECO industry. For example, the retail sales industry has had significant disruption to its business processes from online sales for almost every product – from food to automobiles. This disruption, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, quickly transformed how people buy items and how soon people expect them delivered. Even for home renovation projects, when ordering plumbing supplies, they can be delivered the same day at very reasonable prices. The retail sales industry has had to transform quickly or find themselves out of business. Banking is another example. A brick-and-mortar local bank is no longer even needed in many cases unless the customers are depositing cash. To unlock the full potential of BIM, educators must provide emerging practitioners with specific BIM enhanced knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). These KSAs are potentially universal worldwide as virtually every human on the planet seeks cost-effective housing, a place to work, a way to move between locations, receive health care, eat, and play. The KSAs–centric education will not only build a comprehensive foundation for basic BIM job tasks but also allow us to build upon that foundation to achieve even a higher level of collaboration over time. This transfer of expanded knowledge will ensure the AECO workforce can perform more basic tasks and will encourage others to continue to push the industry to higher goals. Hence, this book is needed not only to start the dialogue but also to provide a baseline from which to build in future years. This body of knowledge (BOK) is not the end but only the beginning of a long process to change the facilities and infrastructure industries and more closely link the AECO industry. It will not be a quick process, but if we begin the transformation now society will benefit only that much sooner. This chapter will examine, document, and explain the process proposed to realize that journey.
1.1.1 Lack of Standardization
Many aspects of BIM and BIM standards continue to emerge in the United States and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, as an industry, practitioners have not done well at adopting standards even before BIM. As just one example, practitioners cannot agree on the phases of a project. AIA (US), CSI/CSC OmniClass, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 12006-2:2015, buildingSMART International (bSI) IDM, HOAI (Germany), and RIBA (UK) all define project phasing differently (Figure 1.1). As time passes, the industry does not seem to blend toward a solution but continues to expand the approaches. While this issue was significant at one point for payments of work in place, the somewhat clear lines between phases have continued to blur. Phasing is but one example of this lack of standardization. While standards for the sake of standards are not helpful, standards for communication and collaboration across the AECO industry are essential, especially as the industry continues to expand the span of practitioners attempting to become interoperable over the entire life cycle of a project.
There are few if any real AECO standards in place and being broadly used at this point. While some are defined at the ISO level and others at the country level, few are commonly used across the AECO industry. The first significant effort to standardize BIM in the United States was the National BIM Standard – United States (NBIMS-US) developed at the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). At the same time it was evolving, the British Standards Institution (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 1192 was being developed in the United Kingdom. BSI 1192 has now evolved into ISO 19650 with little US involvement and no visible coordination. This issue is most troubling to multinational design and construction firms now having to deal with many emerging standards in delivering their work. Standardization should have little or no impact on creativity, but the lack of standards does cause additional complexities and slower delivery. It can also add the potential for error. Standards take time to develop and become incorporated into business processes. Very few first- or even second-version standards yield much real standardization because as more people use a standard, it tends to improve with each new update or disappear if no one supports it through a regular review process.
Typically, early versions of standards primarily serve to begin the dialogue between practitioners. Through feedback from practitioners attempting to implement those standards, continuous improvements will yield higher-quality standards over time. Scandinavian countries use another standard called Cobuilder. Currently, each of these three standards offers different approaches, including their definitions and organizational structures for BIM, but they all require substantial but similar additional knowledge, skills, and abilities to support practice effectively for the future. In the AECO field, educators are challenged with filling in the gaps between historically good practice in all disciplines, and practitioners are challenged with defining recommended or promoting best practice in the connected or interoperability age practitioners and owners now find themselves. While technology is always changing, BIM seems to be far more disruptive because of its facility or infrastructure life cycle implications. Resolving the deltas between how practitioners did business manually and how practitioners will do business in a connected world creates a significant change in how educators educate since the approach has to fundamentally change to integrate the additional complexity of interoperability and collaboration. The US accreditation and professional licensure bodies, along with their respective counterparts in other countries, should be considered as each may provide constraints to this becoming a reality. This transformation therefore becomes a considerable challenge for educators, students, and practitioners alike, given the limited time students have to accomplish the outcome.
FIGURE 1.1 Comparison of project phases.
Source: Dana Smith.
Historically the AECO industry has evolved into silos of thought and expertise. Professionals must now transform into skilled practitioners. They must envision and implement collaboration with other disciplines at multiple levels. Those silos or cylinders of expertise, while vital, need to become more invisible. This transition and transformation will bring a need for an enhanced understanding of information technology as well as knowledge of cybersecurity as the AECO industry begins to collaborate by involving more people between disciplines while building trust in data, information, and experience. Practitioners must be able to share between those silos based on the concepts presented in Figure 1.2 (Frické 2008; Powell 2020). Today the AECO industry is confronted with immense pools of data that can be acquired and digested into information. Then practitioners have to analyze that information to create knowledge and communicate it in such a way as to provide intelligence. BIM is the tool with which practitioners can deliver a facility more effectively and efficiently. Therefore, practitioners have to apply that intelligence to make sensible decisions, which then must be formulated into actions. Without the implementation of those actions, the entire process is of little value.
Additionally, each practitioner must retain control over their intellectual property while allowing others to expand on the information that was created and retaining attribution for the original thoughts and contribution to the project. Many people anticipate that this change will be subject to significant resistance by some current design practitioners who continue to believe the AECO industry is doing just fine using our current pre–Information Age business practices. However, as nearly all information today is available electronically at some point in its life, the AECO industry has to modify and update business processes to take into account the requirement to share, incorporate, and retain the information in a usable and easily sharable format. However, the classroom will not change to support this and other similar needs until the demand for the improved outcome is strong enough from the practitioners and facility owners, so there is a bit of a catch-22 exhibited in the slow transformation of the AECO industry compared with other sectors amid the digital era, as reported by Agarwal, Chandrasekaran, and Sridhar (2016).
FIGURE 1.2 The data, information, knowledge, and wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy.
Source: Adapted from Frické (2008) and Powell (2020).
1.1.2 BIM Use Cases
The goal of this book is not to convince anyone that BIM is a good idea – the AECO community has already made that decision. Instead, an outcome of this book will be to help reshape and expand the thinking about the many facets of BIM and allow us to see the opportunities that still exist. Proof of the fact that BIM is here to stay is exemplified in the bSI BIM interoperability awards, which have been held annually since 2014. The purpose of these awards is not to objectify beautiful BIM projects but to highlight projects and firms that are embracing interoperability using open BIM standards. In 2019 bSI assembled 67 jurors from 19 chapters to review 109 facility and infrastructure projects that included examples of the 50 initial bSI use case categories covering the simplified bSI industry life cycle designated as design, procure, assemble, and operate, as noted in Figure 1.3.
The BIM use cases used by buildingSMART International began with the 25 instances initially introduced in the BIM Project Execution Planning Guide presented by the Pennsylvania State University in 2010 (CICRP 2010) and incorporated into the NBIMS-US in May 2012 (NIBS 2012). They were augmented in 2015 by 15 use cases presented in the bSI product room (Sjøgren 2012), then supplemented by an additional ten use cases introduced by buildingSMART International to yield the 50 BIM use case categories depicted in Figure 1.3. These cover a broad spectrum of practice over the facility life cycle, as we will discuss later in this chapter. As is evident, these are part of a classification of BIM use cases, and additional use cases are being and will continue to be identified over time. The BIM BOK will expand to meet new demands and requirements as they emerge. BIM is all about seamless or interoperable information sharing across all disciplines, from planning to operations and even end-of-life activities related to facilities and infrastructure assets. As new uses are identified, new KSAs will be required but not at the same rate as new use cases emerge.
FIGURE 1.3 bSI BIM use case categories.
Source: Dana Smith.
These 50 use cases are now being identified collectively as BIM use case categories as other specific BIM use cases are being defined. Chuck Eastman developed two of the earliest fully established BIM use cases for precast concrete and architectural pre-cast concrete (Eastman et al. 2010). The two use cases included the information delivery manuals (IDM), which capture the precise information to be exchanged, and detailed process maps, which one would expect in defining a complete BIM use case.
In 2018 and 2019, the bSI award required evidence from submitters as to how people were applying the BIM use cases. This data provided valuable information to practitioners and educators and were being formulated into case studies and implementation guidelines to make them more accessible to practitioners. The bSI award-winning projects and their information are available through the bSI use case management tool (bSI 2019). The materials presented in this tool will be integral to help define the current and future scope of discussion for this book. Having examples of all 50 BIM use cases categories demonstrates just how far BIM has matured, and once case studies are developed others may learn about the reach of BIM today. As new use cases are defined, the need for additional capabilities will create the need to expand the BIM BOK to support that need. However, today practitioners first need to identify the baseline to understand a logical path for future growth.
1.1.3 Relationship of Use Cases to KSAs
There are common KSAs that support all these use cases, which are at the heart of the BIM BOK for today and the future. Most of the KSAs will support multiple use case needs, so this one-to-many relationship makes sense to develop and sustain. For example, a BIM execution plan (BXP) relates to business process mapping and information exchange, and those support many if not all use cases. The section about procurement strategies supports only procurement-related use cases.
Some still see BIM as merely a software tool, yet BIM is genuinely a multidimensional interoperability strategy. While 50 use case categories exist today, many more will come as more facets of the AECO industry become aware of the opportunities. For example, there is a significant growth in using BIM for infrastructure projects, and those will need additional use case categories. Working in the current operating environment of data provided by BIM will only serve to expand the complexity and need for broad-thinking practitioners. In the beginning, practitioners started by mapping out optimum business processes to define the needed use cases, as shown in Figure 1.4. This exercise established a method for creating use cases based on the needs of the practitioner. The precast concrete use case is applicable here, too, as it was identified by the Precast Concrete Institute (PCI) as a needed use case. Originally NIBS had a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in place with some 22 associations with the intent of developing use cases. This strategy was perhaps too advanced in the early days of BIM. The demand was not evident to most organizations to convince them to fund the cost to develop Information Delivery Manuals/Model View Definitions (IDM/MVD) models and turn them into software tools for their practitioner members. Hence, this approach was never fully implemented, although parts of it have proven their validity and are the basis upon which current models are being built. Switzerland, supported by bSI, continues to examine the development of a plan to document use cases using a similar model.
FIGURE 1.4 Process of defining use cases.
Source: Adapted from NIBS (2007).
The concept of the model is first to identify a need and form a workgroup to establish the ideal strategy for collecting and sharing information between all parties involved. Eastman, under a grant from the Pankow Foundation and supported by PCI, used this approach for precast concrete with the intent to develop software to assist the business process (Charles Pankow Foundation 2012). While the project was successful, that approach turned out to be far too costly and resource intensive to succeed for all the use cases needed for the entire industry at a time when the value was not yet apparent to those funding the project. The concept remains viable, and as the industry matures and an overall information technology architecture emerges the detailed IDM definitions will be extremely relevant in a future form. As the use cases are developed covering the complete facility life cycle, KSAs will be identified for the use cases, thereby providing continuing enhancements to the value of the BOK. The challenge for education and this book is to keep pace with the profound industry changes occurring and to prepare future practitioners for the new environment of information sharing using BIM while still ensuring that the basics of building design, construction, and facility management are well understood. This book will be the road map as to how the BIM education community transforms from what it has been to what it needs to be.
Historically, information has been gathered anew for each specific aspect of a project and not shared or reused. Recollecting data leads to duplicative data gathering at a minimum and each practitioner working with a different set of facts at worst. Relying on another practitioner's data is now considered a liability since one practitioner is potentially giving up control of the source data for that phase of a project. While the AECO industry is still very early in the transformation process to BIM, it will be through continuing coordinated education with the evolving practice that a new interoperable model will emerge. The truth is that if an organization is allowing the possibility of different information through disconnected data-gathering approaches, it may be opening itself up to even more problems. When project dynamics change more rapidly than data gathering, it will result in different disciplines using different data to make decisions. Therefore, collaboration is more difficult, if not impossible.
While each discipline remains responsible for its expertise and intellectual capital, there must be a constant understanding by the practitioners of the whole project life cycle. Historically, the AECO industry has moved away from that Renaissance Age holistic view and become somewhat myopic. This age of specialization and distrust likely emerged because of the significant complexities and advances in each discipline. There was also the associated fear of accepting the liability of an unvetted methodology. For example, structural engineering now exclusively uses finite element analysis (FEA) to develop a design. FEA examines the entire structure of the building at one time instead of discrete pieces, such as columns and beams, as used to be the norm before computer-aided design. While FEA is now a best practice in structural engineering, others do not want to accept the liability of structural engineering but fully support the outcome in developing their portion of the project.
BIM can provide the same type of holistic approach for a project using information gained during design for construction and later operations and maintenance. This information sharing and information flow are exemplified by the Construction–Operations Building information exchange (COBie) (East 2016). COBie was the first data schema of its kind to capture information about an object during design and further populate it with information during construction with the intent of providing an information-rich object to the operations and maintenance phases of a project. While many see COBie as a spreadsheet, it intends to be a data model integrated with BIM. This concept will grow as the AECO industry injects object models from manufacturers into the information stream. Practitioners must consider all aspects of a facility or infrastructure asset and prepare ourselves to be able to deal with big data, whether through human interaction or artificial intelligence.
By adopting the method defined in Figure 1.4, the business process and information flows are identified for a specific detailed BIM use case for architectural precast concrete within the structural analysis BIM use case category. This process, as shown in Figure 1.5, defines the multiple roles, for example, architectural designer, precast fabricator, general contractor, and engineer of record (EOR) involved in the sub–use case, along with the specific information exchanged between each party during various phases of a project. This diagram identifies the concepts described previously and also alludes to discussion in the remainder of this book: it articulates the relationships between the BIM use cases and the job tasks that would need to be performed, along with what KSAs the architectural designer needs to successfully transfer information in a usable format to the precast fabricator during the schematic design phase of the project. If the information flow is efficient, it saves time and money. If the data requires significant rework, the process and project are injected with needless waste.
A vital aspect of any life cycle approach is trusting information others enter into the information stream. How do practitioners build trust in other people's data? There is a critical multifaceted answer to the question combining metadata, identifying the authoritative source for the data, and ensuring the data is secure and sustained. The first aspect is to have metadata about every data point. The metadata needs to include the following: (1) who collected the data; (2) when it was collected; (3) for what purpose; (4) the quality; (5) whether it an estimate or a more exact method such as a price quote or the specific results of engineering analysis; and (6) if it was an engineering analysis, its parameters. If changes were made, only the changed information needed to be adjusted.
FIGURE 1.5 Process map for architectural precast showing use cases.
Source: Adapted from Eastman et al. (2010).
Entering metadata is not as difficult as it may sound, as a user should be able to rely on computer applications to track most of the information. Once logged on, the computer knows who the user is, what role they play, and therefore the permissions and authority they have. The user will likely need to enter only intent-related information as source information, which should be tracked automatically. Metadata in the AECO industry has been slow to catch on. It is likely because of the disjointed and unconnected approach the industry has taken in the past. There is a lack of information sharing between disciplines. While other sectors with similar issues such as medicine and banking are resolving their data-sharing issues using concepts such as blockchain, the construction industry, for the most part, has not yet understood the significant waste generated in time and materials driving the need to change.
Identifying the single authoritative source of truth for the data is also an essential aspect of building trust. Unfortunately, as data is reentered by someone other than the authoritative source, it has a high risk of being inaccurate. Rule number one in information technology is that if data is stored twice, typically both data sets are incorrect. A goal educators need to instill in everyone in the supply chain is to enter data only one time and then reuse, augment, and repurpose it over the life of the project, always using metadata to track the chain of custody of the data.
The last key element in building trust is identifying everyone involved in the project life cycle uniquely. Each practitioner brings their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to the project, and those are their intellectual capital. It is paramount that data is protected and attributable to the individual. The first line of protection is password protection, which includes secure passwords, two-stage authentication, and possibly biometrics such as fingerprint, palm print, or iris recognition. The second element is to encrypt information both at rest and in transmission. While some may feel this is overkill and unnecessary to our BIM BOK, it is at the heart of each job task and any industry transformation. A level of trust must be developed in the information. It is done by knowing that no one has tampered with the information – either unknowingly or with malice. It is nearly impossible to add security to the process later in its development. Information security deserves extra repetition as educators understand the need for it to ensure the BIM BOK is successful. It is also critical to identify and track and attribute any adds, deletions, or changes to the data to create that level of trust. The remaining item – possible only after realizing the first three – is having the business processes in place to ensure data sustainment as information is shared over the life of the project.
Many live by the motto if it's not broken, don't fix it. However, for years, we've known that there could be as much as a 33% loss in productivity in the AECO industry, resulting in late delivery and higher project costs (Gallaher et al. 2004
