Construction Professional
The barriers to Business Information Modelling are often seen as too high to be breached. But Richard Vertigan believes we can circumvent them
Looking ahead to an integrated 3D world
TWO DECADES AFTER the arrival of the first 3D construction design programs, and 10 years since the first online project collaboration tools were launched, the industry is now facing almost exactly the same challenges with respect to building information modelling (bim). to take advantage of the efficiency improvements bim offers, we need to make some radical changes in our structures and processes. incorporating such changes by 2020 will require concerted pan-industry action. bim adoption is not just about technologies — it also requires a focus on people and processes. For example, we need influential clients like the uK government to incorporate bim into their long-term asset operation and maintenance processes, looking afresh at the “whole life cost” of our buildings and other assets. this will help drive change within our project teams, moving us away from existing approaches to procurement, contracts, intellectual property, insurance and other industry structures.
after all, a building information model is
more than 3D. it can also be used to generate cost models, schedules to sequence construction activities, and energy efficiency simulations, for instance. and that data should be able to be re-used beyond the design and construction phases, to improve the future facilities management and in-service performance of those built assets. So it’s encouraging that the uK chief
construction adviser Paul morrell is considering setting target dates to drive the process forward, towards a time when bim will be mandatory on publicly- funded projects (see CM, September). top-down targets would be good news — as long as we clearly define the target, ensure it is achievable by an industry still emerging from recession, and have bim vendors that can ensure good levels of interoperability between their systems and with other applications. currently, deploying bim can be
expensive and time-consuming. bim-ready applications are expensive to license,
Back to basics: Concurrent delays
In July a Scottish appeal judgment in City Inn v Shepherd Construction put the spotlight on a regular source of difficulty with extension of time (EOT) claims — namely how to deal with concurrent delays when more than one party is responsible for events that delay the works. The appeal in question related to clause 25 of the JCT Standard Form of
24 | october 2010 | conStruction manager
Building Contract (1980 edition). The case involved nine causes of delay — seven were the responsibility of the client and two were down to Shepherd. There are five key points to bear in
mind when submitting EOT claims to the contract administrator: • The contractor must show that a delay is caused by a Relevant Event under clause 25 and that the completion of
the works has been, or is likely to be, delayed as a consequence.
• A common sense approach should be taken when deciding whether the Relevant Event causes delay.
• That decision can be made on the basis of any acceptable factual evidence. While a critical path analysis may be of assistance when making the decision, it is not essential.
illuStration: PaDDY millS
It’s encouraging that the UK chief construction adviser Paul Morrell is considering setting target dates to drive the process forward
users need to be trained, companies may need new hardware, and we have to continue developing how we share data. buildingSmart, the organisation that sets international standards for construction software, has developed a common data schema (industry Foundation classes, or iFcs) that makes it possible to hold and exchange data between different software applications. However, its efforts to develop and maintain open international bim standards will need support from bim software suppliers. much can be learned from what we have
achieved delivering online collaboration applications in the past decade. i first began developing collaborative websites at taylor Woodrow in the 1990s, sharing
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60