![\"Stocks\"](\"http:\/\/planningandbuildingcontroltoday.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Stocks.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPetrie explained what OpenBIM is by using the analogy of a smart phone: \u201cImagine the IFC (Industry Foundation Class) as the operating system for the digital built asset economy, the apps (MVDs) are there to deliver the functionality \u2013 all of which are available in the cloud for workflows \u2013 and through the buildingSMART Data Dictionary you would have the protocols for data connectivity so you can rapidly exchange the information you need with others. The power (battery) is supplied by the buildingSMART members.\u201d<\/p>\n
He outlined the need for common solutions \u2013 one of which involves growing the standards. He said that:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need consensus to get the value out of the digital economy \u2013 something which needs working on together. We want to bring forward the development of the LODs at an international level.\u201d<\/p>\n
He urged everyone to get personally involved with buildingSMART as an industry community, along with companies and organisations \u2013 the creation of open and shared practices is a common effort.<\/p>\n Next to speak was Raj Chawla. He holds several posts including Vice Chair BIM4SME and is an executive member of the newly formed UK BIM Alliance.<\/p>\n He began by outlining what it is:<\/p>\n \u201cThe UK BIM Alliance are an industry facing group and are taking over the baton from the UK BIM Task Group, which will morph into, and continue with the Digital Built Britain agenda. What we are trying to do is to make sure that BIM Level 2 isn\u2019t forgotten. It is crucial that we make sure the entire industry understands and starts to implement BIM Level 2 in their workflow processes.\u201d<\/p>\n He recognised that there is still a long way to go to get industry to implement Level 2 BIM, but by 2020, the UK BIM Alliance wants to see it as \u2018business as usual\u2019.<\/p>\n More information about the UK BIM Alliance<\/a> is available on the PBC Today website but do get in touch with Chris Witte with any questions: chrisjwitte@aol.com<\/a><\/p>\n The last speaker for the morning\u2019s main plenary was Andrew Bellerby, Managing Director at Solibri, who wanted to outline how to deliver value from BIM model data. He pointed out that verifying data is crucial for the industry along with how we ensure the correct data is utilised. That\u2019s where there Solibri Model Checker comes into play. For more information, please visit the Solibri<\/a> website .<\/p>\n The event then split out into four separate lectures which were repeated in the afternoon. One topic included a public sector and industry in partnership panel debate with Terry Stocks, Paul Surin, Hugh Boyes, Duane Passman and Samuel Radziejowski (available here vimeo.com\/175686575<\/a> ).<\/p>\n Professor Jason Underwood returned in the afternoon to chair the session which began with Alan Muse BSc (Hons) MSc FRICS \u2013 Global Director of Built Environment Professional Groups RICS, looking at how collaboration among professional institutions is a BIM Level 3 imperative.<\/p>\n He highlighted how the new technological opportunities would act as a catalyst for change and offered some thoughts on how professional institutions can be at the centre of this conversation. He began by asking if tradition has any real relevance to the construction industry in the 21st century. There is a tradition of knowledge passed from one generation to the next in all professions proving that all knowing is tradition-dependent. He said:<\/p>\n \u201cThis ensures continuity of thought, but a healthy tradition necessarily involves a degree of conflict \u2013 knowledge is defined and re-defined. Hence, quite radical changes and \u2018traditions\u2019 can co-exist.\u201d<\/p>\n He mentioned that too many projects are not built on time and to budget, and that litigation is rife, saying:<\/p>\n \u201cThe value of disputes in the UK was \u00a317.2m in 2014 \u2013 and only \u00a34.5m at the beginning of the decade. The average global dispute value is \u00a332m.\u201d<\/p>\n He also asked how we can have an \u2018integrated and collaborative environment\u2019 when promoting better performance when we work for separate organisations with differing aims and we are trained in narrow specialisms? He referred to the Edge Commission Report on the Future of Professionalism published last year \u2013 Collaboration for Change \u2013 which identifies ethics, education, research and collaboration as areas where the institutions could, through joint action, enhance their relevance and value. The RICS report \u2013 Our Changing World \u2013 also identifies areas of action in education, ethics, technology, sustainable cities, new business models, collaboration and leadership.<\/p>\n But he said:<\/p>\n \u201cThe major areas of collaboration amongst the construction professions are no doubt in education, thought leadership and the international sphere.\u201d One fundamental precept of Level 3 BIM is that it will demand new ways of working encompassing the whole life cycle, and these new ways of working will require definition and standards.<\/p>\n Muse asked:<\/p>\n \u201cWhich professional institutions will write these standards? How will professionals be trained to accommodate these new ways of working?\u201d<\/p>\n Muse believes that as the industry moves from Level 2 to Level 3 BIM, there are various cross-cutting disciplinary themes such as Smart Cities, sustainability improvements and whole life asset performance which would benefit from collaboration.<\/p>\n Similarly, the connection between data science and the existing professions needs much greater exploration. The construction professions need to work with the technologists so that we can develop data sets that provide a feedback loop between expectation, design and actual performance of buildings and assets.<\/p>\n He concluded the presentation saying that:<\/p>\n \u201cWe have a rich tradition of professional institutions. They still need to develop expertise in their own profession, set qualification standards and act as a voice of their profession. However, there are many fruitful areas of potential collaboration to meet the many challenges that we all face. And technological change will emphasise our demarcations.<\/p>\n \u201cBut this could be just the beginning. A more productive, effective and attractive industry could result. Which is why everyone in this room should take away one message: of course you are concerned with your own professional development, but also encourage your professional institution to collaborate more, both nationally and internationally.\u201d<\/p>\n The afternoon session also saw a presentation from Richard G Saxon CBE, Chairman of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) who examined the topic of shared risk procurement. Standard contracts are part of the Government Construction Strategy to ensure consistency, speed and something which has been tested.<\/p>\n Saxon said it would take many years to determine how the JCT will react to a complete change in how we do business as a consensus will need to emerge as time moves on. He mentioned the nature of Digital Built Britain which has an emphasis on collaborative teamwork and collective responsibility \u2013 something which can horrify some clients and lawyers. After all, their whole raison d\u2019etre is to pin things down in a contract.<\/p>\n Saxon welcomed the \u00a315m announcement in the Spring budget for a five-year development and implementation of Digital Built Britain, as it recognises that Britain has the potential to be the focus of the move to digital working methods \u2013 which would be a potential source of wealth for the country.<\/p>\n Saxon outlined where we are now but how Digital Built Britain will transform our industry. He used the slide below to show the journey we will take, from the design application toolkit we use now to the high-performance computing (or computational design) and analytics that will form part of our future.<\/p>\n He explained in detail how we would see progressive improvements to BIM, the impact of the Internet of Things and the rise of new business models enabled by these two factors.<\/p>\n As an example of a new business model, Saxon mentioned the Integrated Project Insurance concept. This sees the client taking out a collective insurance (instead of individual members having their own insurance) where the insurer vets the design as it emerges so they understand the risk involved. Turning to what JCT is doing, Saxon said that:<\/p>\n The final speaker of the day was Shona Frame of CMS Cameron McKenna LLP, who discussed the legal implications of BIM Level 3, which she referred to being like needing a crystal ball. She believes it\u2019s crucial to get the legal framework right for the journey from Level 2 BIM to Level 3, which would see a shift away from contracting as we currently know it.<\/p>\n The rights and liabilities of parties need to be addressed when considering collaborative working where things may go wrong on a project. The contractual structure needs to go beyond the design and construction phases of a project to operational and facilities management aspects (a totex approach essentially).<\/p>\n Frame believes the way forward is through multi-party contracts where everyone is signed up with rights and liabilities between all of the contracting parties. This multi-party arrangement is the one being used on the Cookham Wood prison project where they are using the PPC2000<\/a> form.<\/p>\n When contracting for the life-cycle of a building, Frame noted that four particular areas require particular notice: Pre-construction; Construction; In Use and Interfaces. For Pre-construction and construction, the key point is to enter into contracts with an eye on the future use of the building. For the \u2018in-use\u2019 phase, it has been suggested (to meet GSL) that people who design and construct buildings, should be required to prove their operational performance for three to five years after the handover of it. This is in line with the approach of the whole life cycle aspect of Level 3 BIM.<\/p>\n And, for the \u2018interface\u2019 Frame said that:<\/p>\n \u201cArrangements would need to be made between the construction contract and the FM contractor because of the overlap period of potentially three to five years, where both of them have obligations and liabilities in respect of that building\u201d.<\/p>\n Regarding contracting for data ownership, capture and use, Frame admitted that nobody really knows yet how this will be solved. She said we would need to involve intellectual property lawyers to work out how it could be done.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are clear tensions between open data sharing versus protection of ownership rights along with liability considerations where data is being used over a long period of time \u2013 subject to change and updating\u201d she continued.<\/p>\n She alluded to the importance of ensuring the security of the data of a built asset, especially for large infrastructure and preventing data from falling into the wrong hands. However, Frame did not want to end on a negative note. Instead she urged that we get contractual arrangements right for the next phase of the industry\u2019s progress.<\/p>\n We are right to concentrate on getting BIM Level 2 to a stage where it is \u2018business as usual\u2019, but that\u2019s not to say we should ignore or be unprepared for what is inevitable: the development of technology that will enable the Digital Built Britain thinking. It is certainly clear from this event that many experts in the industry are already asking the questions around \u2018how we get there\u2019 and \u2018what do we need to do\u2019 and there is a commitment, drive and enthusiasm to make it work. \u25a0<\/p>\n<\/a>The afternoon plenary<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
In conclusion<\/h3>\n