Session 2: Design Delivery

Next Page | Previous Page

Executive Summary

This session focused on the actual authoring and delivery of a design Building Information Model. This model would usually contain information from the Architectural, Building Services, Structural, Civil, Infrastructure and Landscaping disciplines, and perhaps the suppliers. The session focused on how efficiently this could be delivered, including how we could collaboratively design shared elements including stairs, openings, building service connections and civil coordination.

There was no consensus when it came to specific known issues of model element collaboration. There is no commonly understood process, be it formal or informal. Nor was it suggested that there was any kind of industry level protocol to address this. This should be a concern. It could lead to wastage, duplication of effort, design and coordination errors as well as cause problems with outputs such as COBie and Federated Models.

It was suggested that one of the primary reasons for this challenge was the limitation of software, especially across software platforms and a limitation in the separated manner that we produce models, some suggesting cloud solutions being the answer. It was suggested that element collaboration in this way was in fact moving more towards BIM Maturity Level 3, although this statement was contested. There also appears to be an issue of trust, which likely needs to be addressed with agreed quality control measures. This trust issues appear understandable as the session also revealed that there were few controls in place other than peer checking for model validation prior to formal issue.

There was consensus of how this should be handled on a project basis. This was to hold Design Review meetings including perhaps on-going meetings throughout the life cycle of the design. Who should attend these meeting was a subject of discussion with differing opinions.

Level of Definition (LOD) remains a big talking point with very little consensus here. Again, this will almost certainly lead to inefficient modelling. Many people simply do not feel we have the right guidance in the UK presently. Some suggested that the American E202 document was a preferable guide. The comment was made that the current Level of Definition understanding needs to be reviewed per project with the client. For example, some projects will call for a high LOD input at conceptual stages for items say in building services were as say, structures will be still at early LOD levels. It was felt that guidance was currently lacking here.

Next Page | Previous Page