I would say that the answer to your title question is a resounding YES. BUT, it is only one tool in our kit of parts to design and effectively communicate. I believe that part of the problem with today's firm leaders is that they are still asking this question. Get with the program people. I'm weary of people questioning the usefulness of this method of project delivery. Pick a program and get moving! Yes there are transitional growing pains to learning new software. However, once the upfront investment in time and energy are made, the rewards pay for themselves. It is much easier to make changes in the 3D model, which are adjusted throughout multiple views, however you slice and dice it. Sheets may have to be revised, but the program removes multiple aggravations of it's 2D precursor. It is another tool to allow for the opportunity to achieve a more streamlined process and speed. Practice is obviously key. It works, though. It also helps if the licensed architects and owners take part in this learning process. It can be EXTREMELY frustrating on conveying input data time requirements and upfront design collaboration/coordination needs to people who are not trying to understand the IPD process or programs. The good news is amazing case studies were illustrated in the FasterForward conference. People are doing this on grandiose scale projects. I think that the approach of requiring consultants to deliver their end in Revit is prudent. When I coordinated MEP drawings to our Revit Model, it was always an AutoCAD underlay extracted from our current Revit model. I'd have to email the MEP the AutoCAD file and wait for him to send me something back. I had to consistently haggle the MEP to use the updated files that I sent them to reflect RCP evolutions. If we were all using Revit, time lost on this nonsense would be avoided. It seems, however, that many MEP firms are not utilizing MEP Revit just yet. They're cautious. If more firms had gumption like yours, perhaps the process really would be a more collaborative effort.
A snafu/hurdle in this BIM process is regarding our team of contractors and vendors.
Many of these team members still do their work by hand, and they see no need to submit in BIM. Perhaps they don't need to. They get the information that they need from our drawings, submit their shop drawings in whatever form, and go from there. It would be nice if they all used the same platform, but I don' t see small time shops and builders going that route.
At an event in Pittsburgh in November, contractors and architects discussed just this. After listening to the panelists, it seemed to me, that overall, the use of BIM and IPD is a return to the way that things use to operate, in the sense that there was a more intimate relationship between architects and builders. Also, in the sense that the new AIA IPD contracts form an inclusive LLC, thereby equalizing risk and opportunities for reward, versus today's rampant litigation and change order crazy habits.
This symposium in Pittsburgh, co sponsored by the Pgh AIA Young Architects Forum and the Master Building Association's Young Constructors. The symposium was titled: Delivery Systems: Perception vs. Reality. It was an opportunity to be with peers of all ages from the region’s construction industry to hear seasoned and opinionated professionals discuss the generalizations and myths regarding construction delivery methods. Both contractors, builders and architects sat on the discussion panel. Some examples of the discussion points included:
•
The “P” in Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is rarely “G” or “M” – the estimate is based off of progress drawings and will never be fully accurate;
•
In Design-Build, the architect does less work;
•
Architects load the invite list of General Contractors to drive down the cost, then the GCs cut corners to make up for their bid day dive;
•
Contractors provide a FREE estimating service in pre-construction, then are at a disadvantage come bid day since they know where the holes are.
This seminar delved into controversial statements, the types that can divide professions. While these statements made for good entertainment, the end goal was to dispel the myths and address the causes that lead to statements surfacing in the first place. For young designers and builders, this event was a great opportunity to hear opinions from differing perspectives. At the end of the day we work for clients to get projects built. It was refreshing to hear useful information on how this stuff really gets done instead of p.c. filled rhetoric.
#TechnologyinArchitecturalPractice #ProjectDeliveryKnowledgeCommunity