Visualizing BIM Content Quality and its Impacts
Visualizing BIM Content Quality and its Impacts Safety glasses. Forklifts. Yellow lines. These were common sights I experienced from working for a manufacturer for almost a decade. I often found myself walking through the shop floor to get to meetings. My specific role was in supporting CAD/BIM software platforms for AEC professionals using software such as Autodesk® Revit® and Fabrication CADmep™. I managed manufacturer specific BIM content assets. That said, it was great to have the constant reminder about the realities of the real-life manufactured product in the back of my mind. It proved to be a defining chapter in my career. Valuable Experience – Valuable Benefits It is so valuable to have first-hand experience, especially in an industry where there are labor and skill shortages. In addition to shortages, there are often disconnects between field and office. A couple of years ago, I put out a very informal poll on Twitter. I asked how many times someone as an AEC professional has visited a job site or visited a shop floor. About 20% of the sixty-four votes on that poll stated that they had fewer than ten visits or first-hand experiences. Out of that segmented group, over half stated they had fewer than five visits or first-hand experiences. Note that the informality of the poll did not cover additional details such as career stage, additional breakdowns beyond ten visits, and the trade involved. My purpose for that poll was hoping that the percentage of people visiting job sites or shop floors does not go down over time. This is especially the hope, given that we have experienced a lot more virtual and flexible situations in the industry over the last couple of years. BIM is a technology that can accelerate productivity in the construction industry. If we are to truly realize the full potential, we can focus on BIM content as an incredibly effective driver. To do this, we need to focus on what matters. Focusing on what matters includes integrating real-life constructability and compatibility scenarios. This is especially the case for helping AEC professionals who may experience challenges with resources, training, productivity, and more. Without the right focus, you end up with digital paperweights that unfortunately do not serve the need. On the other side of the coin, trying to make something look perfect in software might not translate to a real-life benefit. BIM Content – More than a Download BIM content (especially for manufacturers) has the potential to be so much more than a download. If we don’t focus on the right things, however, we risk losing the forest for the trees. At a base level, a downloaded file is simply another file in someone’s Downloads folder. It says nothing definitive about what someone did with that download or if it worked for their workflow. Therefore, a downloaded file is not a guarantee that a building product manufacturer product was specified in a project. In addition, a downloaded file could make or break the user experience. For manufacturers interested in making efforts in a BIM content strategy, there is a cost not only in inaction. There is also a cost in acting without both a macro and micro focus on the right things. Taking it further, there is a cost without sustained action. So, to consider BIM content more than a download, we need to change our thinking about it. We propose to define the whole concept of manufacturer BIM content a bit differently. We think of BIM content as a digital asset that represents an actual product in more ways than just appearance. Manufacturer BIM content is a digital asset that represents the product in terms of critical dimensions, clearance, performance, adherence to product standards, availability, applicable features, and system applications. Manufacturer BIM content needs to do this while functioning to the best of its ability in the current releases of the intended software and with respect to the product lifecycle. That is quite a lot of pressure on a downloaded file. How do we address this? The Approach Matters If we are not careful, one-size-fits-all approaches and quick fixes are about as fruitful as the claw games at arcades. I am talking about the ones where you put about $5.00 of quarters in only to leave with a low-quality stuffed animal. Or worse, you end up with nothing for the effort. Additionally, in a real-life piping system, a common phrase I learned from working for a manufacturer is that the system is really only as strong as the weakest point. Connections on fittings are often the weakest point (LeVesque, 2017). In the same way, BIM components, especially those meant to connect to pipe and other elements, are potentially the weakest point in your project. Therefore, quality BIM content for manufacturers needs a more thorough and multi-faceted approach to bridge the gap between real-life product scenarios and digital design for better outcomes. The tricky part is defining quality in a way that is not a blanket statement. Several areas may have potential to have “weak points” or deficiencies with respect to many factors. Different AEC professionals place different levels of importance on various things: Introducing the Quality Polygon Score Defining high quality BIM content risks being too subjective if we do not consider a bigger context as well. To visualize something with a more comprehensive lens, we have created the BIM Content Quality Polygon Score, or QPS for short. The QPS is derived from a series of “Yes”/”No” questions. The questions span in a variety of categories pertaining to Geometry, Functionality, Management, User Experience, and Product Data. In addition, there are sixteen sub-categories. Much like the detailed assessments you can get for your car, the QPS is a seventy-five point assessment we use for evaluating BIM content assets and their likelihood of user utilization. Questions within these categories range from “Can you identify the component as a product in multiple ways?” to “Does this component connect with other components at the right places?” and more. “Yes”
Are You Losing Trust in Fabrication Content?
Are You Losing Trust in Fabrication Content? There is an overabundance of Autodesk® Fabrication CADmep™ content as well as numerous resources available for content creation. Unfortunately, the quality content seems to get lost in the shuffle. Incorrect or outdated dimensional data, missing model numbers, redundancies, and more can result in lower quality BIM content for use in Autodesk® Fabrication CADmep™. There are several impacts that contractors face as a result: Significantly increased overall project costs Liability issues Reduced productivity Limited workflows due to lack of software integration With these impacts, it is understandable that a contractor may lose trust in the Fabrication CADmep™ content that is available for download. At ENGworks Global, we believe BIM content can be so much more than a download, and we take quality seriously. Here are the ways we approach quality for the content we create for use in Fabrication CADmep™. What is considered quality content? To qualify as a quality BIM product, Fabrication CADmep™ content needs to be accurate, consistent, and compatible with today’s software needs. Accuracy With the increased use of Fabrication CADmep™ content in the BIM process, accurate content has become a need for modelers, engineers, and professionals. However, we know that is not a simple task because there is a lot of data out there that might have been created for different uses, etc. This creates additional costly challenges. According to an article from Harvard Business Review, knowledge workers waste 50% of their time in “hidden data factories, hunting for data, finding and correcting errors, and searching for confirmatory sources for data they don’t trust.” (Redman, 2017). We actively work in collaboration with various manufacturing teams. In doing so, we can ensure that all data used is certified by the manufacturer and that it originates from the engineering and other manufacturing teams for 100% accuracy. Consistency Consistency is an important aspect of quality across an entire library for a productive workflow. Without consistency, you risk snags and downtime on your projects. Fabrication CADmep™ content is considered consistent if an ITM’s connectivity, naming convention, product CID templates, and other factors are being utilized with best practices consistently. We incorporate product ID, dry weights, model numbers, UPC and HPH codes as the minimum metadata required for our content to meet and exceed end-user expectations. Compatibility Compatibility and functionality are two significant features expected in every fabrication part. A lot of content available in the market today is created with unique connectivity rules. This limits overall compatibility with out-of-the-box content and with content such as pipes and tubes. With the constant innovation and technological advances, all newly built content needs to be compatible with the latest software trends. This allows content to seamlessly fit in with the existing workflows. Our Fabrication team continuously verifies our content to assure full functionality and software integration that suits state-of-the-art BIM processes. Now that we’ve gone over several factors of quality involved with Fabrication CADmep™ content, it’s important to note that these are not individually independent considerations. All of these and more are part of our multi-faceted approach as we serve the industry. Our content is called certified Autodesk® Fabrication CADmep™ content because we know that focusing on the right things not just once but over time creates better outcomes. Leveraging manufacturer certified content provides an enhanced user experience with the following features: Correct and applicable representation of parts Correct connections Correct installation capabilities Correct metadata needed for purchasing and estimate reports Certified content provides significant benefits for design teams: Accurate bill of materials (BOM) Accurate installation drawings Accurate coordination with reduced field issues Accelerated time to production, installation, and beyond Next Steps The complicated nature of Autodesk® Fabrication CADmep™ content and the challenges associated with creating, managing, and updating it creates a gap that is tedious, risky, and expensive to bridge alone. ENGworks Global offers an all-encompassing service that involves all the necessary steps to provide your team with highly efficient quality content. Letting us handle your content needs with our expertise will provide more time for your team to focus on modeling, estimation, and project management. We have over 15 years of experience in content creation along with an outstanding industry reputation. We pledge to provide unlocked quality with certified Fabrication CADmep™ content for better outcomes on your projects. To learn more about our content creation, fabrication, and administration services, contact us at info@ENGworksGlobal.com Sources Cited: Redman, T. C. (2017, October 4). Bad Data costs the U.S. $3 trillion per year. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved May 26, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2016/09/bad-data-costs-the-u-s-3-trillion-per-year Autodesk Trademark Notice: Autodesk, the Autodesk logo, Revit, and Fabrication CADmep are registered trademarks or trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., and/or its subsidiaries and/or affiliates in the USA and/or other countries. This publication is independent of Autodesk, Inc., and is not authorized by, endorsed by, sponsored by, affiliated with, or otherwise approved by Autodesk, Inc. The ENGworks Global Team Please also connect with us on our social media platforms below to stay up to date with our announcements. 1-800-356-8933 info@ENGworksGlobal.com Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Linkedin Back to the Blog Related Posts Elevate Your Workflow – Computer Mouse Devices Elevate Your Workflow – Computer Mouse Devices • August 30, 2022 Visualizing BIM Content Quality and its Impacts Visualizing BIM Content Quality and its Impacts • May 26, 2022 The 2022 AEC Integration Summit Recap: All Aboard the Train to Connect People and Data The 2022 AEC Integration Summit Recap: All Aboard the Train to Connect People and Data • March 2, 2022
The 2022 AEC Integration Summit Recap: All Aboard the Train to Connect People and Data
The 2022 AEC Integration Summit Recap: All Aboard the Train to Connect People and Data Ding Ding. A bell chimes as the train leaves the station at the Denver, Colorado International Airport to make its way to Union Station. Some travelers are weary, and some are energized for the adventure that awaits. Meanwhile, train personnel walk up and down the train to ensure all have a ticket with the correct information on it. Whether those travelers leave the train at one stop or another, or they board another train with a transfer, the train ticket is paramount to get to where you want to go. In my case, my destination was the Construction Progress Coalition 2022 AEC Integration Summit that took place at the Hotel Kimpton Born, just a few steps away from Union Station. Like the train transportation system, the building asset supply chain in a construction project can appear on the surface to function in a comparable way. However, it is not that simple in practice, as I have explored further while participating in the Summit as a primary stakeholder, representing the building product manufacturer (BPM) for the MEP component team. Coming from a background of working for a building product manufacturer for almost a decade, I grew very much accustomed to not just processes but dealing with complexity, or as I like to say, “rolling with the punches.” I worked at the intersection of many distinct groups to support the real-life product as it existed in various software platforms for design purposes such as successful BIM implementation. BIM content itself is a digital asset, and quality matters with the help of supported processes in a supply chain. I learned so much from everyone I interacted with and found immense joy in making connections from various places. The ”train ticket” for me was (and still is) in the data. Visuals Enter the Common Data Exchange (or CDX, for short). According to the Construction Progress Coalition’s website, the “Common Data Exchange (CDX) is a framework for project stakeholders to communicate interoperability rules and requirements between two or more parties. CDX is not a standard, per se, but a visual representation of workflow and data exchange requirements between supply chain parties.” (Wood, Common Data Exchange (CDX)). Here is what I love about the Common Data Exchange concept. The fact that it is more focused on visual representation of a workflow is so refreshing. I have been a huge fan of mind maps, concept maps, and other forms of visual thinking for years. I even wrote an article about my experience in using visual mind maps in the November 2020 issue of AUGIWORLD magazine. The flexibility in displaying information in a more open way for different situations allows me to focus more on conveying ideas than on how to format them. It also helps us get away from the “we’ve always done it this way” trap if a certain situation calls for something different. That does not mean there is not a form of a structure though. The CDX framework used at the 2022 AEC Integration Summit included magnets and stickers with specific symbols representing documents, databases, current state, future state, connections, people doing certain activities, and more. Everything down to the actual sticky note color had a reason and meaning. The framework was there in visual symbols, but the actual idea conveying activities was flexible because all team stakeholders could move things around, write in words, and add lines and connections wherever it made sense on a large whiteboard. This proved to be extremely helpful because what is interesting between manufacturing and construction is that sometimes the same words can mean very different things to people in different roles. In an industry where there are so many buzz words and acronyms, any sort of clarity on what we are talking about would be greatly helpful! Linguistics This brings me to the next thing I enjoyed about collaborating with the team at the Summit. The facilitation of such an event really made us question everything down to the actual words we were using in the problem statement and what we were hoping for in the outcome. Yes, we even broke out the thesaurus and dictionary on a few occasions! The objective for the MEP component team looks like this, but I can tell you after working with the group that it does not necessarily mean that words are set in stone. Word choices really do matter and solving the most complex problems comes with asking the right questions in the first place. Perspectives People may say that they enjoyed an event, a group, or otherwise because of the “like-minded” individuals. I think, in this case, the only “like-minded” part is in a common goal to improve things across the entire industry. This event was full of different perspectives that can result in perceptions being different from intentions and contextual realities that are different but valid. A great visual often used in Systems Thinking is the story of “The Blind Men and the Elephant.” Essentially, the story goes on to describe how each person approached a different part of the elephant and concluded something different about it. This story illustrates those individual perceptions, while true and valid for that individual, can lead to miscommunication and conflict if we are not careful because it is not the full context (Saxe, 2015). Participating in the 2022 AEC Integration Summit gave us an opportunity to explore the context of our MEP System Component “elephant.” Put in another way, the summit allowed us to put the strengths of generalists and specialists to work. Naturally, the book “Range,” by David Epstein validated my experience in deliberately choosing to be more of a generalist and a connector in a world where specialization and depth in one specific domain are favorable (Epstein, 2019). However, when we are not careful, silos of data develop, duplicate and manual efforts take place, and trust is low. The thing is, I think
