BIM Execution Planning
A BEP, or BIM Execution Plan, is the documentation of team standards and protocols. The BEP defines what is being modeled, who is modeling it, when it is being modeled and how is will be modeled. All of the contents of a BEP are driven by what the team wants to utilize the Building Information Model for. Q5 recommends some level of BIM Execution Planning on all projects.
BIM Execution Guessing
Q5′s BIM Execution Planning facilitation is actually based on a process developed by Tocci and KlingStubbins in 2007, during a digital delivery charrette with Johnson & Johnson. Our team has used the process on many internal and collaborative projects, but as we worked with more our of clients, an interesting thing happened. First, our BEP got more detailed, especially the Level of Detail section -rather than using an Assembly Code-based spreadsheet, we transitioned to a very detailed, image and text-based system organized by Assembly Code.
However, as we worked with teams more and more, we realized that we use the BEP as both a guide for modeling and then a team building activity. As we started working on the project, the items that were listed on the BEP were revisited, detailed out and sometimes modified. The framework of the BEP is constant; the relationships within the team are constant; the modeling methods are flexible.
This goes with what 37signals says about planning: that it’s guessing. That doesn’t mean don’t do it; it means plan in a way that enables flexibility. Although they recommend replacing “plans” with “guesses”, we will probably stick with the acronym BEP instead of BEG.
Which BIM Addendum: AIA E202 or CD301?
Many owners that we’re working with are turning to the AIA E202TM-2008-Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit to further define the BIM they are requiring. Most are referencing the level of detail section of the E202, which enables a team to associate detail for different systems at different stages of the project.
Although there are parts of the E202 that we appreciate, Q5 generally recommends the ConsensusDOCSTM301 – Building Information Modeling Addendum, which serves a similar purpose. The E202 is more contractually transformative, reallocating model responsibility; where, the CD301 works within a CMAR with Preconstruction Services structure. The CD301 addresses intellectual property and risk allocation, (Although if you’re really interested in a comparison of the CD301 and E202 from a legal standpoint, click here.) but what we really love about CD301 is how it references an external BIM Execution Plan, allowing the team to customize their approach to a greater level.
The E202 doesn’t reference a BIM Execution Plan, most likely because of Article 3, entitled “Level of Development” (LOD). Article 3 first defines model content requirements and authorized BIM uses for LOD100 through LOD 500. For instance, LOD100 requires “overall building massing indicative of area, height, volume, location and orientation in 3D or other data”. Authorized BIM uses include volume, area or orientation-based analysis as well as order of magnitude costing and project phasing.
The Level of Developments are basically associated with traditional project phases/deliverables:
LOD 100 Conceptual Design
LOD 200 Schematic Design/Design Development
LOD 300 Construction Documents
LOD 400 Shop Drawings
LOD 500 As-Built
Users of the E202 fill out the Model Element Table, determining which LOD various systems will be modeled at, for each stage of the project. While I commend the authors for trying to standardize model development, I don’t find the Model Element Table a particularly useful tool for teams to use. When we go through the Level of Detail section of our BIM Execution Plan, we dig into every system to fully understand the requirements respective for each phase – considering tolerance, composition of the objects within the system, material application and requirement, etc. Each system ends up being somewhat different. Although this doesn’t help the industry’s standardization effort, it certainly helps project teams stay on target with model development.
Regardless, these competing documents will either carve out their niches or converge to support a similar process. Q5 looks forward to participating with both organizations, through involvement with the BIMForum and the Digital Practice Documents Liaison Group.
Update from OPCSO
After yesterday’s of BIM Execution Planning kickoff, we dug in again this morning – this time focusing on the Level of Detail for M/E/P/FP systems. While we were working on that, the architect released a rendering of the exteriors – just in time for the team who was started to model architecture!
Pierce Reynoldson works with the Woodward architectural modeling team for OPCSO.
Day 1 of BIM Execution Planning on OPCSO
Notes from today's BIM Execution Planning
Today was day 1 of BIM Execution Planning with Woodward’s OPCSO team. Although the focus of the effort related to the OPCSO project, all of Woodward’s BIM Champions attended so that discussions could also address Woodward’s BIM process in general.
We spent the morning on the first five steps of Q5′s BIM Execution Planning process, alternating between project-specific requirements and general process requirements. We started by detailing each team member’s role and mapping out OPCSO’s BIM schedule at the 100,000 FT level. Once we all had a clear sense of some of our resource constraints, we considered potential BIM uses. The key focus of these efforts is coordination support, but the team really wants to go above and beyond, preparing the BIM to provide field support. After a lengthy discussion about what the team can realistically accomplish, we moved into software selection and standards.
Laura Handler, Director of Operations, reviews software standards with some of the Woodward Design+Build BIM Champions
We updated Woodward’s templates to reflect some of our discussions and then spent some time with Level of Detail. Those discussions will continue tomorrow, wrapping up at noon, so the team can start modeling with Q5 available for support.
The Woodward BIM Champions’ passion for BIM is contagious. As other team members walked by the open conference room, they couldn’t help but joining in the discussion – even if just for a few minutes. Everyone from the Director of Estimating to the project superintendent is excited to use the model in some capacity on the project.
Q5 Awarded VDC Services on Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office
Q5 has been working with Woodward Design+Build for several months now, providing general consultation on Woodward’s VDC implementation. Woodward recently engaged Q5 to support the creation and use of BIMs on the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office. Woodward will also be using Q5′s input on the process for the project to inform and updates its current Revit standards.
The VDC for the project kicks off this week, with Q5 facilitating BIM Execution Planning at Woodward’s office in New Orleans, LA. Laura Handler, Director of Operations, and Pierce Reynoldson, Virtual Design & Construction Associate, will be blogging live from the kickoff this week, describing the BIM Execution Planning activities.
BIM Execution Planning
There is no shortage of BIM Execution Plan concepts available – everything from Penn State’s template to Indiana University’s own BIM Standards and everything in between. Although Q5 has been performing BIM Execution Planning for quite some time (we were actually part of the team that coined the term for the Consensus BIM Addendum, developed by the BIMForum), we update our process when appropriate, based on updated information. Our current process, which we are facilitating on a number of projects, looks something like this:
Project Kickoff
Last week, Laura Handler, Q5′s Operating Manager, and John Tocci, Q5′s Strategic Adviser, attended a kickoff meeting for Square1, a Crate & Barrel located in Mississauga, ON. For this project, Crate & Barrel is aiming for a significant level of process transformation – the design team, construction team, subcontractors and suppliers were all present at the kickoff. The project includes significant pre-fabrication of components and a schedule reduction of almost 50%.
Q5′s role on Square1 is VDC process facilitator. The design team is working to create a detailed BIM, but other team members’ experience with BIM varies. Q5 will enable team members to leverage the BIM during coordination, procurement and construction. This will be accomplished through execution of model exchange protocols, training and BEP Execution Planning, as well as model reviews.
The 8-hour project kickoff meeting was a success by all accounts – information shared, relationships developed, goals aligned. And better than that, the team had a great time.
Can You Prefabricate From Your Model?
One of the many benefits of utilizing a BIM that is often touted is direct from model prefabrication, but it often begs the question, “Is my model fabrication-ready?”.
We are currently performing model review for a client to determine opportunities for prefabrication along with any modeling issues that need to be resolved for prefabrication. Although each project and system is different, here are some of the many rules of thumb to consider:
>What are the tolerances required of the system? If a fabricator requires accuracy to the nears 1/8″, the model must be accurate to the nearest 1/8″. (But of course, some systems require more accuracy than that!)
> Are there naming or material conventions to consider?
> How “clean” does the geometry need to be? For instance, can two components overlap at their connection point? Will the fabricator pick that up and detail the connection or is the extent of the model critical?
The same goes for any downstream use of a BIM; in most cases, it must be modeled considered each downstream use. We recomend utilizing a BIM Execution Planning process to determine the downstream uses that a team wants to use and Model Review to verify that models are complying with the standards set out in the BIM Execution Plan.
BEP Tip #1: (0,0)
One of the things that we always include in our BEPs is an origin point. It sounds simple, but we often receive models that look like this:
Models not Aligned Floor Plan
instead like this:
Aligned Models, Floor Plan
The solution is planning the origin point. We associate the point (0,0) with a specific grid intersection (usually A & 1) and require each model and file to maintain that standard. Additionally, we make sure that each file has a copy of the gridlines, so that we can verify this alignment. And as far as Z goes, each model uses actual elevation. But we have our ways of making projects align when it is too late.
Side Effects of a BEP
A BEP, or BIM Execution Plan, is the documentation of team standards and protocols. The BEP defines what is being modeled, who is modeling it, when it is being modeled and how is will be modeled. We have created them for many different projects (both for lonely and social modeling), but we have found the greatest success when we create a BEP with the project team.
Although the ultimate point of the plan development is to align technical standards, one of the significant side effects is team alignment. Creating a BEP is almost like doing trust falls or rock-climbing together; it requires and builds trust, compromise and relationships.
Q5 facilitates BEP development with team members, both leading the process and documenting the results. Q5 bases the BEP on the standards of the BIM Addendum (ConsensusDOCS 301) and can prepare the team to utilize that document.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||