2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

BIM.01 Scheduling, Estimating, and BIM: a Profitable Combination

Ms. Tamera Lee McCuen
t may be difficult to realize the true spirit of a building information modeling (BIM) system when a design team creates a model independent of the 4D (schedule) and 5D (estimating) know-how of industry professionals. Project scheduling and cost estimating are essential components in the pre-construction process and should be included in an advanced BIM system to facilitate informed decisions with regards to time and costs and the impact of each on a projects bottom line. Adding 4D and 5D to a BIM project creates an environment that enhances profitability. This paper presents a case study in which the scheduling and cost functions added value in the model development. It concludes with a method for 4D and 5D integration so to optimize the benefits of BIM for both the project team and project owner. INTRODUCTION The GSA emphasizes that BIM is more than stringing together a series of unintelligent 3D CAD drawings. BIM is an intelligent model created by combining a graphical and data model. The I in BIM is what represents the true concept and intent of BIM as it excludes previous available unintelligent models from classification as BIM [12]. BIM provides team members with current and reliable documents that are useful in preconstruction, construction, and post construction activities [7]. BIM is a standardized interoperable information model driven by industry demands to improve traditional business processes and collaboration between stakeholders. Building information modeling (BIM) is gaining momentum in the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) industry as owners such as the GSA (General Services Administration) and the USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) implemented initiatives requiring future projects involving the design and construction of facilities include BIM. Each of these entities has published requirements along with time lines for full implementation of BIM on all projects. The National BIM Standard (NBIMS) provides the following definition for BIM on its website [10]: Building information modeling (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its life-cycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to demolition. A basic premise of BIM is collaboration by different stakeholders at different phases of the life cycle of a facility to insert, extract, update or modify information in the BIM to support and reflect the roles of that stakeholder. This paper presents the findings from a case study, which revealed the value of the schedule and cost professionals role in a BIM project designed and built in the northwestern US. First, the paper establishes a working definition of BIM and its impact on the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) industry. Next, the paper establishes an understanding of the skills and knowledge contributed by the schedule and cost professional on the BIM team and the correlation of these professionals attributes to the spirit of BIM. The paper then presents the findings from a case study with M.A. Mortenson Company in Seattle, Washington. A tool for measuring BIM maturity level is introduced and findings from an independent project applying this tool to the Mortenson project. Next is a discussion of how the value added by the scheduling and cost functions contributes to the profitability of a project by increasing the completeness of information exchange between the BIM team. This paper applies findings from the interactive capability maturity model (I-CMM) as a means to measure the contribution of scheduling (4D) and cost (5D) in this case study. Ultimately, this project was profitable because of the efficient combination of professionals skills and knowledge. In the end, this paper recommends a published guide for BIM integration.
BIM.01. 1

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

SPIRIT OF BIM Inherent in all technology structures are two defining characteristics. The first characteristic is that of the features of the technology. A technologys features relates to the restrictiveness, level of sophistication, and the comprehensiveness of the technology. The spirit of the technology refers to the decision process, leadership, efficiency, conflict management, and overall atmosphere of the technology [6]. The spirit of BIM is collaborative and integrated by definition and goes unrealized when a design team creates a BIM without planning, scheduling, and cost professionals contributing to the model in 4D and 5D [12, 8, 3]. Planning, scheduling, and cost professionals are critical stakeholders and play a major role in the success of a project. A BIM that includes the 4D (Schedule) and 5D (Cost) functions is a BIM that involves these professionals earlier in the preconstruction phase. BIM combines the spirit of the technology with the ideology of integrated practice. Coordinating construction sequencing by integrating schedule data with the 3D graphical model creates the 4D aspect in BIM. The fifth dimension (5D) uses the 3D model data to quantify materials and apply cost information [3]. BIM facilitates virtual construction for process improvements during the development phase of a project. The AACE International Recommended Practice-14R-90 sets for the scope of knowledge for planning and scheduling professionals [1]. Included in this document are the required skills and knowledge the professional brings to the preconstruction process and adds value during constructability reviews. The planning and scheduling professionals ability to employ methods that optimize the proposed design in consideration of the effective performance of construction activities is value added. It is during this stage of construction planning that the professionals recommendations of alternate materials, unique construction sequencing (i.e., activity logic), and construction technologies provides an analysis that has an impact on the construction process [1]. During the planning stage, the cost professional scope of knowledge provides the project with a professional who can predict estimate accuracy, integrate scheduling and estimating practices, provide lifecycle cost assessment, and contribute to the activity of value analysis and engineering [2]. BACKGROUND According to the General Buildings Information Handover Guide [8], BIM benefits all stakeholders in the facility life cycle and improves performance in three major dimensions of performance: cost, schedule, and quality. The Construction Users Round Table (CURT) encourages owners to require BIM as a means to optimize a project with open and clear communication in an integrated collaborative team environment [5]. The integrated collaborative environment includes the planning, scheduling, and cost professionals and their contributions to the model in 4D and 5D. The General Buildings Information Handover Guide [8] includes a report on the findings from a pilot study in which an integrated team collaborated to focus on energy performance and construction costs for a proposed project. The pilot study discovered multiple areas of efficiencies using BIM over traditional processes, however for the purposes of this paper the efficiencies effecting construction costs are most relevant. Using the architects BIM, the constructor generated a preliminary cost estimate by extracting quantities directly from the 3D model. In fact, based on the known and reliable information about the buildings components and assemblies contained within the 3D BIM, the constructor was able to provide preliminary cost estimates of two design alternatives in one day [8]. Efficiencies like this in the preconstruction process provides benefits for all the stakeholders, including owners, architects, and constructors. BIM enables a collaborative environment with the integration of 4D and 5D functions for improved efficiencies. This is important because efficiency as a measure of performance is the most informative since it takes into account both inputs and outputs in the process [4]. CASE STUDY The case study in this paper is the M.A. Mortenson Construction Companys completed BIM project for the Benjamin D. Hall Research Building at the University of Washington. The author selected this project based on familiarity with the project, extensive research on the project, and the projects award winning status. M.A.
BIM.01. 2

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS Mortenson Construction Company received the 2007 AIA TAP BIM award in Design/Delivery Process Innovation Using BIM category for its design-build-operate-maintain project.

METHODOLOGY The author uses the case study method described by Robert K. Yin to furnish a methodology for data collection and analysis of the BIM project to demonstrate the spirit of the technology and the high performance outcomes of the collaborative team [13]. Yin furnishes three guiding principles for case study development [13]. The first is the use of multiple sources. In this study, the sources consist of project information from the AIA TAP BIM award narrative and descriptive data, the NBIMS Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM) project, the companys website, in addition to completed questionnaires and interviews with Mortensons design coordinator. The next principle is creation of a database. The database in this study is the data created from analysis of the AIA TAP BIM information and the data gathered from written responses and oral interviews with the design coordinator. The final principle is maintaining a chain of evidence. In this case, this principle of the chain of evidence is the chain developed between the spirit of the BIM, the collaborative environment, and the detailed case study of the performance of the BIM for the project. Having held to the Yin model in this study, its results, and conclusions offer an authoritative study for this particular case. M.A. MORTENSONS BENJAMIN D. HALL INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH BUILDING The descriptive data sheet submitted for the 2007 AIA TAP BIM awards provides information about the BIM within the architect, contractor, and owner statements. All three parties attribute the success of the project to the teams use of BIM. In their submission, Mortenson states that, The model has proven comprehensive and durable enough to assist in all phases of the project lifecyclefrom conception, through design and construction, to operations and maintenance. The project architect states that BIM was a key factor in the projects end result of an aesthetically pleasing, cost effective, and functioning building that meet the owners needs. The owners statement further supports the contribution of BIM in their statement that the project team delivered the project ahead of schedule and within budget, while exceeding the universitys quality and scope expectations. Furthermore, the owner attributes the projects success to the teams dedication to BIM. The final score calculated by the I-CMM for this project substantiates the above statements by the projects stakeholders. FINDINGS Completion of the University of Washington (UW) Research Building was 40 percent faster with an 80 percent reduction in the number of RFIs directly attributable to the resolution of over 1,500 systems conflicts using BIM during preconstruction. Mortensons success with the UW project was a combination of the BIM spirit and professional know-how of the team members. The technology features, and limitations, required Mortenson combine multiple software applications using a strict protocol and process for creating forced interoperability between the software. Outcome from the interoperable model provided a digital representation of the facility in multiple dimensions. The BIM spirit provided by the efficiency and overall atmosphere of the project is distinct and embodies integrated practice. The BIM team consisted of thirteen core members representing design and project management functions for the constructor, architect, engineer, and key subcontractors. Secondary members were included in the team as needed for specialized skills or knowledge. Each team member brought skills and knowledge contributing to 3D, 4D, and 5D input to the model. On average, the team members had 5-10 years industry experience. The professional know-how of the team was augmented with the teams unofficial mantra If you keep doing what youve always done then you keep getting what youve always gotten. This mantra enabled team members to approach the project with the new technology and a new integrated approach. M.A. Mortenson integrated BIM with time to develop 4D simulations of the project schedule. The use of simulations reduced the project construction time through optimization of the schedule. The 4D simulations facilitated detailed work sequencing for trades working around each other and for trades better understanding the
BIM.01. 3

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS project requirements. Detailed simulations allowed for the coordination of all building trades and systems, including architectural, structural, and MEP systems. The team solved problems in real time using BIM technology augmented with face-to-face collaboration. If one trades work conflicted with another, then the team would resolve the conflict looking at what is best for the project. BIM enabled this approach because the model contained all relevant information for decision-making based on the project as a whole. Mortensons BIM Manager, Dace Campbell, identified the major component and perhaps the real value of using BIM on the project was the usefulness of exposing all subs and architect(s) to the various 3D packages of each other (discipline). This helped team members realize and visualize the project and work progress/sequencing. BIM created a vehicle for empathy for other subs and facilitated discussion until subs became advocates for each other in sequencing 4D. As previously mentioned, the use of detailed 4D simulations allowed for the resolution of over 1,500 systems conflicts during the constructability review, which led to a more efficient project with time and cost savings. Figure 1 is an example of the 4D simulations done for the BIM model. Use of BIM on the project resulted in an 80 percent reduction in RFIs per dollar of construction compared to Mortensons non-BIM projects. In addition, the project was completed 40 percent faster with the use of these 4D simulations compared to a traditional project without 4D BIM.

Figure 1 BIM 4D Simulation The team used the survey quantities of building materials, elements, system components, and volume of concrete from the BIM 3D to accurately cost and procure items for the project. The team was confident in the BIM and relied on the information contained in the model as accurate and non-redundant. Figure 2 represents the information within the BIM that contributed to the cost functions. Ultimately, the team felt confident in using this information. Because of the limits of technology at the time of the project, the team performed calculations for the cost estimating functions outside the model with support software. However, the material surveys for the cost function were part of the model in the 3D application. The accurate material take-offs provided by the model, allowed the team to include the cost function with confidence. The team received input from the cost professional regarding opportunity for efficiencies and ultimately used this information to improve the model.

BIM.01. 4

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Figure 2 BIM 5D MEASURED ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT Useful to the discussion of this project is a review of the recent published evaluation of the Mortensons University of Washington BIM project using the NBIMS Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM) [9]. NBIMS identifies the capabilities, or areas of interest, of a BIM in its Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM) [11]. Figure 3 shows the I-CMM for the University of Washington Benjamin D. Hall Research Building. Rating and scores were as follows:

The Interactive BIM Capability Maturity Model

Weighted Importance 84% 84% 90% 90% 91% 91% 92% Graphical Information 93% 94% Spatial Capability 95% Information Accuracy Interoperability/ IFC Support 96% Area of Interest Data Richness Life-cycle Views ITIL Maturity Assessment Roles or Disciplines Business Process Timeliness/ Response Delivery Method Choose your perceived maturity level Completely Authoritative Information Includes Operations & Warranty Limited Control Operations & Sustainment Supported All BP Collect & Maintain Info Real Time Access w/ Live Feeds Web Enabled Services - Secure 4D - Add Time Integrated into a complete GIS Computed Ground Truth w/Full Metrics Full Info Transfers Between COTS Credit 6.7 5.9 4.5 7.2 7.3 9.1 7.4 8.4 8.5 9.5 5.8

Credit Sum Maturity Level

Figure 3University of Washington I-CMM

80.1
Gold

The I-CMM includes eleven areas of interest used to analyze a BIMs maturity along a matrix of ten levels of maturity, or sophistication. For the purpose of this paper, the author focuses on those capabilities contributing to the development of 4D and 5D. First area of interest is Data Richness, which evaluates the completeness of the data contained within the BIM from the most rudimentary unrelated data to complete data for full information and knowledge about the model. Within the model, its weighted importance is 84 percent. This project was only two levels short of the highest maturity level available because of it level of completely authoritative information. Although this area focuses on data in particular, the completeness of data in a BIM is a function of the data contributed to the BIM from multiple sources. The contribution of data from multiple dimensions 3D, 4D, and 5D and perspectives by the professionals comprising the Mortenson team facilitated this projects high score in this area. The next area of interest on the I-CMM relative to this paper is the category of life-cycle views which describes the number of individual stove pipes being linked together within the BIM as authoritative sources of information. This area carries a weighted importance of 84 percent in a BIM model. The University of Washington project scored only three level below the maximum maturity level because the project includes
BIM.01. 5

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS operations and warranty in its life-cycle views. This area evaluates the phases of the project and identifies how many phases the BIM includes. The stovepipes of a traditional project are linked together to take advantage of the information contributed by the authoritative source of the information. This category has high cost reduction, high value implications based on the elimination of duplicative data gathering. Mortensons team eliminated stovepipes and reduced cost in the BIM process, which by definition increases efficiency by reducing inputs compared to outputs. The third area of interest in evaluation of this BIM is in the area of roles or disciplines, as related to the players involved in the business processes and their participation in the BIM. Weighted importance in the I-CMM is 90 percent. This project was only two levels below the maximum, which includes support of both internal and external roles and disciplines. The term roles refers to the players and the flow of information between players in the business process. This is critical to reducing the cost of data re-collection. Disciplines are often involved in more than one view as either a provider or consumer of information. The goal is to involve both internal and external roles, that these roles include both providers and consumers of the same information so there is not a need to recreate the data, and that the authoritative source is the true provider of the information. Mortensons cross-functional team included multiple professionals representing critical roles and disciplines contributing to the 3D, 4D, and 5D functions of BIM. Graphical Information helps paint a clearer picture for all users starting which starts with 3D and expands to include time (4D) and cost (5D) information interfaces. The weighted importance for this area of interest on the I-CMM is 93 percent. The graphical information for this project was only one level below the maximum of nD time and cost. The I-CMM elaborates on this area in its description of contribution to increasing maturity with 3D images for more consumers of the information will have a common view and a higher level of understanding occurs. The addition of time and cost 4D and 5D expands the interfaces of the model significantly. Mortenson added both dimensions to the UW model. Technology facilitated the integration of 4D in the model. Limitations in BIM technology at the time of the project did not allow for 5D integration directly into the model. The team created 5D information from information exported from the 3D and 4D model. Although cost information occurred outside the model, decisions made within BIM included the cost function.

As demonstrated in application of the I-CMM to this project it is a useful tool and provides a method for analysis of a BIM. The I-CMM is free and is available for download at http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/pdfs/BIM_CMM_v1.8.xls DISCUSSION The General Buildings Information Handover Guide [8] aligns with the AIA emphasis on integrated practice. Integrated practice brings procurement construction and operations expertise into the early stages of design decision-making. As this case study reveals Mortenson instituted a collaborative integrated practice. This case study provides evidence the value added by following Mortensons lead and instituting an approach to BIM in which professional know-how combines with the spirit of the technology for a profitable combination. The value realized in this studys BIM is a product of 3D, 4D, and 5D combined. The author recommends the General Buildings Information Handover Guide [8] and its principles, as helpful in establishing a method for integration of 4D and 5D. The guide draws on reengineering practices and sets forth four principles as follows: Capture information once; avoid redundant data entry. The use of the intelligent building model to provide input to multiple analyses facilitates a higher degree of design optimization by eliminating the need to re-enter the same basic building information into each program. This improves quality and ensures that the analyses performed occur on the same building information. Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results. Producing rapid, iterative cost estimates from the design model and merging the 3D geometry with the proposed construction schedule to visualize and optimize construction sequencing are examples of concurrent activities that were never before possible. Let one person perform a work process from beginning to end. Allowing the suppliers and subcontractors who will provide and install the components to actually develop the virtual building components to be included in the construction model gives them the greatest flexibility in meeting requirements and improves the dimensional accuracy of the model.
BIM.01. 6

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS Build control into the process. The use of 3D review sessions to highlight interferences before fabrication of components reduces the cost and time required for resolution in the field. Some projects using this technique have reported zero change orders due to clashes between building system components encountered in the field.

ecause efficiency is a measure of inputs to outputs, the author posits that BIM is an efficient solution if all inputs are included. Ultimately, inputs into a BIM should include the scheduling and cost dimensions. Adding 4D and 5D to a 3D model maximizes the inputs and as evidenced by the Mortenson UW project maximizes the outputs. At this point in BIM technology, limitations in the features and interoperability may provide obstacles to seamless interface between software. However, by following the spirit of the technology for integrated practice inclusion of 4D and 5D functions are possible. Mortenson embodied the spirit of BIM and expanded the University of Washington Research Building model to include 3D, 4D, and limited 5D for a profitable combination ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank M.A. Mortenson Company and the American Institute of Architects for authorization to use the images from the project as provided for the 2007 AIA TAP BIM awards.

REFERENCES 1. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 14R-90, Responsibility and Required Skills for A Project Planning and Scheduling Professional, TCM Framework: 7.2 Schedule Planning and Development, 2006. 2. AACE International Recommended Practice No. 11R-88, Required Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering, TCM Framework: General Reference, 2006. 3. Associated General Contractors of America, The Contractors Guide to BIM, Edition 1, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from www.agc.org 4. Beal, Daniel J., Robin R. Cohen and Michael J. Burke and Christy L. McClendon, Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meat-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, (88:6), pp. 989-1004. 5. Construction Users Round Table, Optimizing the Construction Process: An Implementation Strategy, WP 1003, July 2006. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/ip_optimizingconstructionprocess.pdf 6. DeSanctis, G., and M. Poole, Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory, Organization Science (5:2), 1994, pp. 121-147. 7. Elvin, George, (2007), Integrated Practice in Architecture. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 8. Fallon, Kristine K. and Mark E. Palmer, General Buildings Information Handover Guide: Principles, Methodology and Case Studies (NISTIR 7417), August 2007. Retrieved September 18, 2007 from http://www.fiatech.org/pdfs/articles/NISTIR7417.pdf 9. McCuen, Tammy, and Major Patrick Suermann, P.E., The Interactive Capability Maturity Model and 2007 AIA TAP BIM Award Winners, Viewpoint #33, AECbytes, December 6, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/2007/issue_33.html 10. National BIM Standard Project Committee, What is BIM?, Frequently Asked Questions About the NBIMS, Retrieved December 15, 2007 from http://www.facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/faq.php#faq1 11. National Institute of Building Sciences, National Building Information Modeling Standard, Version 1- Part 1: Overview, Principles, and Methodologies, December 18, 2007. 12. U.S. General Services Administration, Office of the Chief Architect, GSA Building Information Modeling Guide Series 01 Overview, Version 0.60, May 2007. 13. Yin, Robert K., (1994). Case Study Research, Second Edition, California: Sage Publications.

BIM.01. 7

2008 AACE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS

Ms. Tamera Lee McCuen University of Oklahoma tammymccuen@ou.edu

BIM.01. 8