UNDERGRADUATE CIVIL-ENGINEERING TRAINING REQUIREMENTS TO FACILIATE INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (IPD) Andrew Whyte, Curtin University, Australia

Transcription

1 UNDERGRADUATE CIVIL-ENGINEERING TRAINING REQUIREMENTS TO FACILIATE INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (IPD) Andrew Whyte, Curtin University, Australia Abstract The Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research suggests there to be limited training (across the construction supply chain) able to facilitate Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), and that this represents a barrier to effective and efficient interdisciplinary working within the building industry generally; they argue strongly that training is critical to increasing Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation in Australia, to ensure that the sector remains competitive. The research presented here has, as a key objective, an assessment of the current knowledge base(s) that might be tapped into to facilitate/encourage improved integrated project delivery in the (Australian) construction industry and, more specifically, assist graduate Civil Engineers in BIM processes that, arguably address fragmentation, towards improved communication and quality control. Effective implementation of BIM systems, towards integrated project delivery, requires industry and higher educational institutions to address a current lack of training; indeed with many companies hesitant to embrace BIM because of the daunting and costly process of re-training staff, the onus of responsibility for skill generation falls principally to those charged with the maintenance of undergraduate course relevancy. The work conducted here seeks to assist undergraduate (civil) engineering courses to maintain such relevancy.

2 UNDERGRADUATE CIVIL-ENGINEERING TRAINING REQUIREMENTS TO FACILIATE INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (IPD) Objectives The Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research (2010a) suggests there to be limited training (across the construction supply chain) able to facilitate Integrated Project Delivery (IPD), and that this represents a barrier to effective and efficient interdisciplinary working within the building industry generally. This government department argues strongly that training is critical to increasing Building Information Modelling (BIM) implementation in Australia, to ensure that the sector remains competitive. The research presented here (building upon a study by Whyte and Luca, 2012) has, as a key objective, an assessment of the current knowledge base(s) that might be tapped into to facilitate/encourage improved integrated project delivery in the (Australian) construction industry. Civil Engineering graduates are entering an industry where design and building activities have become more and more specialised, leading to a somewhat fragmented process resulting, both anecdotally and somewhat measurably (Kent 2010) in, data duplication, knowledge management inefficiencies, and uncoordinated data-source integration. Each design specialist produces their own respective package of work, and industry must strive to integrate these for the client and respective stakeholders. Unfortunately there is an historical problem in the lack of co-ordination of the different specialist activities. With adoption of an integrated system such as Building information Modelling (BIM), the whole process may arguably become less fragmented, more streamlined, and address positively communication and quality control. The challenge for Educators is to prepare the next generation of construction and design practitioners to make full use of such integrated systems. Effective implementation of BIM systems, towards integrated project delivery, requires industry and higher educational institutions to address a current lack of training (MHC 2008); indeed with many companies hesitant to embrace BIM because of the daunting and costly process of re-training staff, the onus of responsibility for skill generation falls principally to those charged with the maintenance of undergraduate course relevancy. The work conducted here seeks to assist undergraduate (civil) engineering courses to maintain such relevancy. Significance and, Theoretical Foundations Government agencies, professional bodies and industry stakeholders (and perhaps most aggressively, software vendors) are somewhat united in their call for the increased knowledge dissemination of building information modelling towards improved integrated project delivery. However the perception of BIM in industry varies between these different user groups, with Main Contractors having the most positive perception of the need for a future uptake of BIM, despite being currently being the lightest users (MHC 2008; Aranda 2009; MGH 2010; Lesniewski 2009). In light of an industry-wide call for BIM and IPD, it is argued that Higher Educational Institutions must increase their dissemination of this knowledge-base to early-stage practitioners, particularly since industry generally is reluctant to grasp-the-nettle, arguing that training staff with new software is simply a cost to business and not a long-term investment; this is despite findings amongst explicit users, that new BIM services significantly benefit their businesses (AGDIISC 2010a). Pressure from new graduates for training, manifest subsequently

3 in undergraduate education is likely to drive instruction (Sacks 2010; Howard 2008). Educators must instil within their courses discussion of the main theoretical foundations involved in an uptake of BIM & IPD, namely the five key factors of: software; liability concerns; productivity issues; cost; and, collaboration requirements, which are outlined briefly below. Industry needs training to develop greater expertise in: (i) software systems, in creating and managing modelling (Kent 2010; AGDIISC 2010b) where a barrier to IPD is the limited ability of different BIM platforms to share data & support supply chain workflows (AIA 2010). Whilst 64% of users experience gains, 14% argue that the costs of BIM don t balance benefits (Aranda 2009). It is suggested that standards require development by both industry & software companies (Howard 2008); (ii) liability concerns are current not being met within legal frameworks and this hinders BIM adoption, with no articulation of embedded data nor (wholelife) risk and audit. New legal frameworks are required to address data risk, intellectual property, fees, responsibilities, legal liability and insurance (AIA 2010; Mesh 2011). Similarly confusion exists over supply chains, procurement, model ownership, and dispute resolution processes (AGDIISC 2010a; Novitski 2010); (iii) productivity issues are another aspect to address since BIM technology designs can help construction/fabrication efficiencies (AGDIISC 2010b), and where two-thirds of BIM users report a positive return of investment overall (GHC 2008). Whilst drafting costs increase by 22% (AIA 2010), over time there are likely to be fewer change orders & requests for information, faster collaboration (Kent 2010; Novitski, 2010), and time savings in construction sequence options (Malkin 2010); (iv)cost of implementation is another variable to be assessed since BIM can result in project cost reductions, 7% reduction in manufacturing cost and 9% reduction in installation time across all sectors (AIA 2010). It is argued that a cost reduction through BIM use in Australia (during the next 10 years) might result in an estimated one-off (beneficial) increase in GDP of Aus$5 billion. (AGDIISC 2010a); (v) collaboration and communication issues also present an opportunity to work together better through IPD/ BIM (Kaye 2009). Changes to communication systems may reduce the several independent inter-disciplinary paths to one (AGDIISC 2010b), allowing faster more effective information sharing (Arayici 2008). Design & Procedure and, Findings Educational relevance: An online student survey conducted, towards triangulating results with a tertiary education perspective, yielded 27 responses (21 of whom studied Civil/Structural Engineering, with 22 starting their final year). Only 15% of student respondents had previously heard about BIM, implying that universities are not educating students about 'explicit' BIMrelevancies. Somewhat aligned to this, whilst the majority (80%) indicated they would like more instruction about computer-information-modelling, the survey did however reveal that most final year students felt competent in the full range of software perceived to be currently used by their local industry (59% were confident of their software knowledge, only 15% deemed themselves not competent in industry software with approximately 25% undecided). It is therefore argued here that the 'implications' of IPD through BIM, rather than the software itself, needs additional emphasis at the undergraduate stage of training. Industry relevance: An online industry survey yielded 20 responses, from a good distribution of disciplines (civil/structural engineering, architecture, building, and drafting) with professional experience levels ranging from 5 to 25+ years. The survey results showed that 65% of respondents an understanding of the concept (respondents with 5 to 10 years of industry experience reported most exposure), with 20% no exposure to BIM thus far. The majority (80%) of respondents were unsure about the current education systems put in place by

4 their company for BIM. Respective in-house training systems were largely unknown to staff; opportunities then, for companies to develop and promote training more holistically perhaps. Respondents (85%) were positive to the benefits and uptake of BIM systems. No respondents thought using a BIM system would be unable to yield improvements in productivity of their work group; indeed 95% of respondents would choose to use a BIM software system if they had the choice. Somewhat in contrast to perceived training opportunities, the majority of respondents (73%) perceived that management was trying to implement BIM into their workgroup. This indicates that leadership places high value on implementing BIM into the company, and are trying to communicate this attitude to their staff, albeit with limited availability of explicit software training. It is argued here that management is actively preparing employees for BIM, but with no explicit systems for promotion & training. Industry interviews: Eight industry professionals were selected and invited for further interview and were asked to comment on broad topics surrounding BIM. Two had been directly involved with using BIM, although all professionals were aware of it. There was a general consensus that BIM is likely to be a beneficial system; a majority were able to give an example of an instance where they would have increased the quality of the product, saved time, and/or reduced cost on a project, had some aspect of BIM been used. Most of these opinions were based on BIM s 3D modelling capabilities, clash detection, and automation of tasks. There was consensus that, in a consultancy, smaller jobs do not necessarily require BIM, and that traditional approaches and less detailed software systems are deemed as continuing to have a role in the industry for such less complex projects. A common perception gleaned from the interviews was that government is encouraging and asking companies to use BIM in their projects, but trailing the large Australian mining organisations. In regards to in-house BIM training and staff development, interview respondents (similar to survey respondents) were largely unsure of their respective company training. Senior Managers in the interview sample did mention the pending availability of industry training, but that this had not yet been structured nor been officially communicated as available to staff. Case-study data from a longitudinal BIM-project analysis: Preliminary data has been gathered from an ongoing BIM (design) case-study, AUS$17.6M mixed-use residential/retail project to be completed in early The project design team were approached for information related to their (early-stage) perception of five key project-specific BIM factors: rationale for use, training, cost implications; communication; and, liability concerns, with the following results: (i)rationale for using BIM: The firm decided to incorporate BIM explicitly within their tender submission because senior management involved were highly motivated to use a BIM system. (ii)processes to train staff: The main project participants were already familiar with BIM and did not require additional educational programmes; however the service subcontractors did require training, resulting in a 'substantial' cost for this project (a value for which is still in calculation). According to senior management, where there was/is a need for (sub-contractor) training, external schemes rather than team-leader mentoring is being ideally sought. (iii)design cost implications using BIM: In the context of the leading consultancy, cost reduction is proving to be somewhat more of a theoretical benefit rather that an actual benefit when using an IPD, BIM system; since 2D systems allow for interpolation of the drawings with much less specification of detail. Thus the cost of (preparing additional 3D) design is increasing on this BIM project with only limited improvements in (the client s) scope understanding. Although, once contractors learn that documentation is more accurate and has fewer issues on-site they (are beginning to) reduce the contingency in their lump sum construction cost (submissions). Essentially the design team argue that this is taking costs away

5 from the builder. Generally respondents suggest that using a BIM system gives less probability of variation (and claim) and the overall building cost may (is being) be lowered. (iv)communication (improvements as a result of) using BIM: a common opinion expressed by users is that communication has become more effective; respondents suggest that the amount of clarification needed is reduced as the BIM system gives a better project overview, albeit that there is no real relationship between increased understanding &BIM cost, as identified above. (v)liability: Intellectual property and liability are not an issue in this case-study as only drawings were/are given to the client the digital model is not made available. It is suggested in this particular case-study that any liability associated with changes made to the model are easily identifiable and controllable as different people have different levels of access and all edits are associated with the person/computer that made them. Conclusion The research described above demonstrated a greater design cost involved in BIM with no real improvements in a firm s explicit productivity, albeit with improved (somewhat intangible) working relationships/reputations. It is interesting that BIM is 'perceived' to increase productivity. This disparity may be due to the fact that the theoretical benefits of increases in productivity are very much a long-term, next-project projection. The majority of industry respondents are unsure of current BIM education systems. Structured interviews show an inconsistent process. Education systems were largely unknown, requiring industry stakeholders to work harder to communicate BIM training options to practitioners. Generally 95% of respondents would choose to use a BIM enabled software system, with early-stage staff motivated to learn and use BIM systems. Overall, whilst it is argued that there is certainly a need to align industry-relevant-software with Higher Educational Institutional teaching, there is also a very real need to couch computer-aided-design within the broader aspects of interdisciplinary communication, realistic cost benefits and professional liability. References AGDIISR (2010a), Issues Paper: Digital Modelling & Built Environment, Canberra, A.C.T. AGDIISR (2010b), Building a Culture of Innovation in Built Environment, Canberra, A.C.T AIA (2010), Report on BIM/IPD forums, Aranda G (2009), BIM demystified, Int. J. of Managing Projects in Business, 2 (3): , Arayici, Y (2008), Towards BIM for Existing Structures, Structural Survey, 26 (3): , Howard R (2008), BIM experts views AEI, 22 (2): 271, Kaye, A (2009) Integrated project design: technical & practice, AJ, 230 (4): 32, Kent D, (2010) Understanding construction industry experience J.Con.Eng.Man, 136(8): 815, Kiviniemi A,(2008), Review of the Dev/Imp. of IFC Compatible BIM, Erabuild,. Lesniewski L,et al,(2009) Roadmap for integration: AIA, USA Malkin R, (2010) BIM for Efficient Sustainable Design, Architecture Australia, 99 (5): 105, Mesh (2011) Conference Series BuildingSMART, MHC (2007) McGraw Hill Construction "Interoperability in the Construction Industry" MHC (2008) McGraw Hill Construction Building Information Modelling (BIM), MHC (2010) McGraw Hill Construction, "Green BIM: How Building Information Modelling Is Contributing,, Novitski B, (2010) IPD contracts, AR, 198 (10): 49, Sacks R, et al (2010) Teaching BIM J. of Prof. Issues in Eng.Ed.Pract.,136 (1) Whyte A, & Luca M, (2013 pending review), BIM & IPD in WA, ISEC-7, US