BIM Journal Issue #4 by BIM Journal

BIM JOURNAL

ISSUE FOUR

BIM for Manufacturers: Examining the value of BIM in the Manufacturing sector

BIM JOURNAL

Jonny Hill jonny.hill@bimjournal.com EDITORIAL:

Nathan Hudson editor@thebimhub.com DESIGN:

Stacey Beardsley CONTRIBUTORS:

Carl Collins, Digital Engineering Consultant, CIBSE Matt Crunden, Training and BIM Manager, Legrand Adam Ward, Director, BIM Technologies/ Space Group/ BIMstore Peter Caplehorn, Deputy Chief Executive and Policy Director, Construction Products Association Kieran Parkinson, Market Development Manager (Built Environment), British Standards Institute Gavin Summerson, Senior Certification Manager, British Standards Institute Several others, anonymous. BIM Journal is published by: BIM Journal Ltd, Upper Floor, Turnbridge Mills, Quay Street Huddersfield, HD1 6QT 01484 437318 www.bimjournal.com

3 3

BIM BIM JOURNAL JOURNAL

Editors FOREWORD

Welcome to Issue 4 of BIM Journal, a themed publication that deep dives into a pertinent topic of the day from within the BIM/ Digital AEC realm. In the prior edition, we looked at BIM in the Infrastructure sector by focussing upon Highways, Rail, Water, Utilities and Nuclear before concluding with a good old fashioned look at COBie. In this issue we will look at the world of BIM as viewed from a Manufacturer’s perspective, by discussing and presenting a timely snapshot of how BIM and digital AEC is impacting this sector of the industry. We will focus on the use and practicalities of the emerging standards, the value of product data templates, the great debate surrounding the use of fully modelled objects, what on earth BIMHawk and LEXiCON are, plus we will also utilise choice contributions from key standards bodies and significant industry players. It is hoped that you find this publication appealing, and that you glean confidence when discussing and understanding the topic going forward. Remember to subscribe to receive BIM Journal directly too. Kind regards and best wishes,

Nathan Hudson

BIM refers to the virtual 3D building information model or models which are then brought together “as one” at key intervals.

“

NEWCOMER HINT:

“ BIM also refers to the potentially agonising process of getting project participants to interact with the model collaboratively, when they should, in the agreed format, using the available standards, on time (aka the BIM process).

BIM JOURNAL

CONTENTS

One

BIM FOR MANUFACTURERS

Two

BIM AND THE MANUFACTURER: AN OVERVIEW

Three SETTING THE STANDARD

Four A QUICK LOOK AT PAS 1192-7

Five

THE “GREAT DEBATE”: MODELS OR DATA? PART 1

BIM JOURNAL

CONTENTS

Six

THE “GREAT DEBATE”: MODELS OR DATA? PART 2

Seven

PRODUCT DATA TEMPLATES, SHEETS, BIMHAWK AND LEXiCON

Eight

FIVE PRACTICAL LESSONS FOR MANUFACTURERS WHEN BIM MODELLING

Nine

THE IMPORTANCE OF INDUSTRY WORKING GROUPS

Ten

CONCLUSION: BIM FOR MANUFACTURERS

BIM JOURNAL

One: BIM FOR MANUFACTURERS

Here we present a dedicated and in depth look at BIM in the Manufacturing sector. What it means, who is doing what and how manufacturers can up their game and get even more involved. To set the scene, although it has been growing steadily over the years there has been something of a lack of manufacturer, and indeed facilities management representation at many of the leading BIM and digital AEC events. Both parties have certainly been very active in terms of raising their own awareness internally, taking bold steps to begin to mobilise, but it has been something of a covert operation for many it seems. Yet the ‘bond’ between these two cohorts really does need to increase and, as any process or workflow improvement or efficiency drive goes, BIM can really help to enable it and to make the whole process much more streamlined and much better for all. If it is done well. Indeed what is often overlooked by many professionals is the sheer expertise that manufacturers bring with them, and how this expertise can be disseminated and distributed throughout the client, design and constructor teams.

Now it is not news that manufacturers have been faced with many options when it comes to participating in BIM, so to speak, and this has largely resulted in the digital conversion of their manufactured items into very attractive 3d objects, with a little data attached. Some manufacturers have decided to simply provide the data, with others kind of providing a mixture of the two, a generic item but with their own data kind of appended. All approaches are a good start, but BIM as we know is much more about collaboration, long term thinking and, dare I say it ‘rapport’. Indeed some of the data provided (which I have personally seen) is horribly unstructured and not useful at all, merely lip service to an emerging ideal driven by hollow publicity at the wheel. To do it well, as in properly, is something that is not necessarily difficult but it does require careful consideration, planning and zeal.

“What is often overlooked is the sheer expertise that manufacturers bring with them”

BIM JOURNAL

“Some of the data provided is horribly unstructured and not useful at all”

Of course to many of us, leveraging digital data so appended to a 3d item is a thoroughly logical and natural step. None of this pushes the boundaries of existential thinking, especially when we consider that the lion’s share of manufactured items start as 3d modelled components anyway. Indeed by this measure the products, at least in 3d terms, are largely “there” but of course the devil is in the detail and the associated data. The debate regarding whether manufacturers should even present accurate 3d models at all will be discussed and debated somewhat further in this issue. Indeed, as BIM Journal seeks to create a fitting snapshot of where we are at present, the articles presented will look in depth at the current landscape that manufacturers face today; the standards in use and their significance; the emerging PAS 1192-7 standard; the “great debate” around generic items versus fully hosted and modelled 3d items; the BIMhawk tool and the significance and meaning of product data templates; LEXiCON; working groups, the BSI Kitemark and finally a look at how The BIM Hub plans to help manufacturers to break further into this realm. As usual, guest articles and opinions will feature throughout, sourced exclusively from the likes of CIBSE, Legrand, the British Standards Institute of course and many others. Let’s get cracking.

MEP APPS FOR REVIT Design quickly using reliable manufacturer data

Discover our apps r ou d y! oa da nl to ow s D app

MEPcontent PLiP for Piping MEPcontent PLiP for Valves

SANHA Product Line placer

ABB Busch-Jaeger Switch Range Configurator

Stabiplan Export and Import Excel

Stabiplan Recesses

Stabiplan Electrical Diagram

STORE.MEPCONTENT.COM

ALLPLAN RAISE YOUR LEVEL

TRY NOW FOR FREE: allplan.com/building

Allplan Engineering Building is the ultimate BIM solution for structural engineers where no compromises are necessary. The high performance software enables engineers to create models, detail concrete reinforcement and generate working drawings without switching tools. BE QUICK AND ACCURATE: > Up-to-date documents and professional visualizations > Efficient reinforcement modeling with high data precision > Reliable and traceable quantities and costs

allplan.com

BIM JOURNAL

Two:

BIM AND THE MANUFACTURER AN OVERVIEW

In the first of his two guest articles in this issue, we are proud to invite Carl Collins (Digital Engineering Consultant to CIBSE) to give a timely overview of the Manufacturing landscape in a BIM capacity to date. Over to you Carl...

At present, almost all of the larger product manufacturers in the marketplace have addressed “BIM” and what it means for them in one way or another. What is also true is that smaller and mid-sized manufacturers are starting to catch up as well, especially if their product ranges are aimed at the market sectors that have engaged the most with BIM during the design and construction phases. Given the size and scale of the market itself however, the drivers for doing this are many and varied. As a consequence of this upheaval, it is important to take a closer look at what those drivers are, how successful these outcomes have been and whether or not this is moving the industry forward. But first of all we have to qualify that there is still a lot of confusion around what BIM is because, when canvassing opinion, the answer is not a simple one. If you put ten people in a room and ask them what BIM is, you will get eleven answers. They will be broadly similar but each will also contain many subtle differences. This is to be expected as the field, or at least the ‘scope’ of BIM itself is colossal and not too well served by one simple acronym. For some, it is the process by which we design, procure, construct and inhabit our built environment. For others, it is simply about how data is exchanged. Indeed some will say that it is the data itself that is at the heart of BIM.

“If you put ten people in a room and ask them what BIM is, you will get eleven answers”

BIM JOURNAL

“There are two main camps that I see emerging and they come from opposite ends of the factory; marketing and technical”

With a perception by newcomers that 3D models are the sole focus of BIM, while others migrate onto concerns over ‘4D’ and ‘5D’ there is a lot to take in, no doubt about it. Indeed BIM can be about exchanging data from construction to operations, it can also be about building off-site, it can be about the Internet of Things controlling systems, harvesting data and making our assets more secure. You may recognise your own definition in this list. None of these answers are wrong, however none of them are complete. The fact is that there is no single complete answer to what BIM is, which is why it is still being asked. Over the years I have spoken to hundreds of manufacturers from all over the world, from campus scale Combined Heat and Power systems to manufacturers of quality paints and varnishes. The commonality of all of these com-

panies is that they recognise the need to involve themselves in BIM, as that is the way forward. Indeed an industry “migration” that will see the very standards and processes appear themselves as the migration itself is taking place. So what have been the common themes that manufacturers have clustered around? There are two main camps that I see emerging and they come from opposite ends of the factory; marketing and technical. Marketing, doing the job they are paid to do, see BIM as a way of pushing the qualities of the product to the forefront of the mind of the specifier. Some rely heavily on high end graphics applied to objects that are used in design and construction models. Others use clever algorithms and software to allow quick and simple product selection. The tenet being - make it easy to fit the product into a design, and you will get specified more.

While there is sense to this, the technical teams are more interested in getting the relevant information into the hands of those that will actually use it. The traditional approach of information existing in a brochure sitting on a shelf is pretty much past its sellby date. PDF versions of these brochures are also going the same way and rightly so, as this is not data that can be readily used. The really smart companies have managed to bang the heads of their marketing and their technical teams together and come up with something genuinely useful instead. Something that looks great as well as just plain works. Whereas others have, on some occasions, simply outsourced their requirements without going far enough to understand what they are really getting into.

There is nothing wrong with outsourcing, especially where you do not have the skillset in house. Likewise there is nothing wrong with developing that skillset in-house either. The above examples are merely two ends of the spectrum when it comes to manufacturer engagement with BIM. The important critical factor is to understand what is being done and why. When you can answer these questions, everything else will follow. But what of the short to mid term future of BIM for the manufacturing sector? Well, for some manufacturers the future is simply going to look a lot like the present already does for some of the others. BIM is supposed to be a level playing field and a trailing edge technology: meaning that anybody should be able to participate. However it has not really panned out like this and we need a period of

consolidation for others to catch up, where the early adopters have stoically forged ahead. Digital processes will generally continue to advance at a great pace, of course, but the things to really look out for will be; • Fabrication direct from proprietary models • Procurement via the model • Virtual and augmented realities for on-site workers • Far greater “built off-site” activity • Greater data exchange consistency between the design and construction processes. In the longer term, manufacturers should start investigating Products as a Service; essentially renting or leasing a product to a constructed asset for the life of the product, then

BIM JOURNAL

replacing it with the new and recycling the old. There will also be Blockchain to watch out for; a method of automating payment for goods or services using trustless crypto-currencies (a technology that I will be covering in a future article). To wrap this overview up, it can be seen that we have indeed come a long way in a short time in terms of embracing BIM. It does feel like it has taken an age at times, but when I look back at what was being done less than a decade ago I really do see the changes. Old engineers like myself can remember how glacial change can seem to be, but we are now finding ways of working much more closely with design and construction teams and we are learning from one another. Indeed this is the most exciting part of the fourth industrial revolution - because this is what BIM really is.

BIM JOURNAL

REINFORCING YOUR AMBITION Realise a fully collaborative digital experience. Allplan Engineering is the ultimate solution supporting the entire BIM process for engineers, structural detailers and construction companies. ALLPLAN reinforces your ambition with a superior and productive workflow. DIGITALISE YOUR EXPECTATIONS:

> Powerful BIM functionality for an efficient workflow > Model complex geometry with highly adaptive reinforcement > Fast production of quality drawings and deliverables

“ Thanks to the detailed 3D reinforcement modelling there have been zero issues – the complete reinforcement has been delivered with precise dimensions, collision-free and on time to the Queensferry Crossing construction site. ” Andreas Hartung, CHP Constructions

ALLPLAN UK here to support your engineering needs. +44 (0)1530 560126 sales.uk@allplan.com allplan.com

BIM JOURNAL

Three: SETTING THE STANDARD

It is not news that certain standards have been readily embraced by some and readily misunderstood by others. In light of this it is important to remind ourselves of the critical standards in operation and look at how they impact upon clients, facility operators and of course manufacturers. In this second guest piece from CIBSE, here is Carl Collins again to tell us more...

Well it might sound like a silly question, but it is worth unpacking not just what a standard is, but also what it is for and how it is arrived at. After all, the world of BIM is heavily influenced by standards and many other publications from standards’ bodies. We should all be familiar with BS 1192:2007 and PAS 1192-2 already, but we need to get back to square one and look at the basics in order to do this subject justice. Indeed, why is one a BS and the other a PAS? The distinction is important. The British Standards Institution (BSI) defines a standards as being an agreed way of doing something. Which could be about making

a product, managing a process, delivering a service or supplying materials[1]. As such, it should not be surprising that the process by which a standard is created is long and complex. It takes years to get through drafts, reviews, comments and editing, but what emerges is a consensus view that a sector of the industry can apply.

“Do all of these standards align to produce a clear and consistent message? No.”

The process is described by BSI as being the distilled wisdom of people with expertise in their subject matter, who know the needs of the organisations that they represent. People such as manufacturers, sellers, buyers, customers, trade associations, users or regulators. [1] This describes a British Standard and indeed this is how BS 1192:2007 came into being. Naturally there are similar processes for European and International standards too, but what about the PAS? In the words of the BSI, a PAS is a Publicly Available Specification that standardises elements of a product, service or process. PASs are usually commissioned by industry leaders, be

they individual companies, SMEs, trade associations or government departments.[2] This is not the same as a standard, it is privately commissioned through BSI to get some standardisation into products and processes quickly. They are not intended to be long lived, but often form the basis of fuller standards that will be developed at some point in the future.

BIM “Standards”

In the BIM workspace, there have been a large number of documents emerging from several standards bodies: BSI, CEN and ISO. Do all of these standards align to produce a clear and consistent message? No. How can this be? Surely they were written by the people and organisations that have been applying BIM principles and are subject matter experts? Well again no, they were not. The reason why they were not written by expert practitioners is that these standards were written to define how BIM is done, and not to reflect what people already did. Some of the principles and processes have been used in real projects, certainly, processes like Avanti[3] have been tried and tested and are now enshrined in these standards. However the UK Government’s BIM mandate required change

in a reluctant industry. The solution has been to write standards to drive industry into changing working patterns. This has been largely successful and the move to BIM has been felt throughout the construction industry, but it has also been subject to change, as the processes have been applied in real-life situations, so changes and additions have continually had to be made.

BIM JOURNAL

A good example of change has been the introduction of PAS 1192-5, which covers the security aspects of dealing with BIM data. The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) noticed that some of the information that may be exchanged could have security implications, which is now front and centre in all of our lives, so the process had to be refined to accommodate those concerns.

The most common experience has been clients asking for a BIM project without really understanding what it means. This is not too surprising in intent, as there are many articles and news pieces that tell of large efficiency savings when BIM is applied to projects. However, there is not a great deal that tells the client what they are supposed to do to facilitate this application. What this results in are swathes of projects that have no client or ‘employer’ inputs upon which to implement BIM wholeheartedly. In short, the client has not provided critical items such as their Employer’s Information Requirements, Asset Information Requirements or Organisation Information Requirements. Unhelpfully, this leaves the lead designer to produce a BIM Execution Plan, so created as a specific ‘reply’ to the items mentioned above, without ever being told what the full ‘question’ was. Now most BIM-savvy designers can of course cope with this or, if not, they can employ the services of a BIM consultant. This will result in a BIM project for sure, but wholly on the terms of the design team, and not the employer. So where does this leave Manufacturers?

Some parts of the standards have, shock horror, been rather ignored by and large. But which bits are they and why have they been ignored?

Most designers will have an understanding of what a manufacturer’s requirements will be, but they will certainly not be experts in this regard.

“The UK Government’s BIM mandate required change in a reluctant industry”

BIM JOURNAL

Furthermore, they will probably have less of an understanding of the Facility Management requirements of the manufactured products that will be used in the completed asset. This is where standards can be of real use. They may not provide a holistic solution to all of the BIM requirements of a particular project, but they will point to considerations, workflows and information exchanges that can make the whole process easier, which make the final asset better, more efficient and something that the employer can use effectively. Reading standards takes a particular sort of approach because they are written in a specific style to ensure that they are clear and unambiguous. This is not the simplest way of communicating, granted, and who actually knows the difference between a standard and a specification, or the exact syntactic difference between ‘shall’, ‘should’ and ‘may’? Indeed knowledgeable interpretation, triple checking and seeking the counsel of others will always be required. But standards themselves, and especially the PAS suite of documents are by far and away the best ‘first base’ when starting out on any project. CIBSE have produced a series of guides that unpack the requirements of the standards. If you are a Building Services Engineer these may well be of use to you and they can be found here; http://www.cibse.org/knowledge/ cibse-publications/cibse-digital-engineering-series. If you would like to join us in the conversation around BIM and Digital Engineering, you can join the CIBSE Society of Digital Engineering at http://www.cibse.org/sde

“Who actually knows the difference between a standard and a specification, or the exact syntactic difference between ‘shall’, ‘should’ and ‘may’?”

BIM JOURNAL

Bentley is Advancing Infrastructure

Advancing infrastructure is now a world priority. We need high performance infrastructure that can meet the demands of a global population while preserving a vital and healthy environment for generations to come. Bentley provides innovative innovative software and services for the enterprises and professionals who design, build and operate the world’s infrastructure — advancing the global economy and environment, for improved quality of life.

Find out more at: www.bentley.com © 2017 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley and the “B” Bentley logo are either registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.

BIM JOURNAL

Four: A QUICK LOOK AT PAS 1192-7

In light of the prior Standards article, here is Kieran Parkinson (Market Development Manager, Built Environment, BSI) to shed a little more light on what we can expect from the upcoming part seven of the popular suite.

What is the general scope and reach of Part 7?

‘PAS 1192-7: Specification for defining and maintaining structured digital product information used for the design, construction and use of a product or built asset’ will be based on the BIM Task Group document ‘Product Data Definition - A technical specification for defining and sharing structured digital construction product information’ available at http://bim-level2.org/en/guidance/. This Product Data Definition (PDD) document was intended to provide a consistent methodology for the definition, creation, management and sharing of product information through the life cycle of an asset, based on the purpose of that information and who the information is to be used by. Through BSIs consensus-building process, involving a Steering Group and public consultation, the PAS will build on the PDD to provide a consistent approach for defining product data and product data templates to enable the consistent flow of information from a manufacturer through to an installed, operational and maintainable product or system. This PAS will be application-agnostic.

What problem/s does it solve?

In a traditional construction delivery model, the flow of information often stops at the handover stage with operations and maintenance information being passed to the asset owner, whereas in a digital environment the information continues to flow through the operation and maintenance of the asset. Product data needs to be accurate and reliable for the purpose for which it is required, and structured to enable data exchange between parties. Structured data suitable for exchange does not mean a common language is required between all actors, nor does it mean learning a new digital language; accurate data exchange can be facilitated by clearly defining attribution and structure of terms that users are already familiar with. PAS 1192-7 will provide the structure to enable plain language parameters to be exchanged through open standards such as ISO 16739 IFC 4 and BS 1192-4, whilst ensuring that all necessary product information requirements are met to comply with

BIM JOURNAL

relevant standards through the life cycle of an asset. It wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t define specific data templates for products or systems, and instead focus on the process with which they should be defined and shared consistently based on the purpose of the information.

What is the current status of PAS 1192-7?

The PAS is still at an early stage of being drafted. When the Steering Group agree that the draft is ready to be shared publicly, BSI will circulate a draft for public consultation (DPC) via BSIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Standards Development Portal (SDP) https:// standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/, which is where all draft BSI standards can be reviewed and commented on. The current plan is to share the draft for public consultation in early 2018, with final publication of PAS 1192-7 in the summer of 2018, however as with all standards the schedule is subject to change depending on the nature and number of the comments we receive, for example.

BIM JOURNAL

Five: THE “GREAT DEBATE”: MODELS OR DATA? PART 1

Well it is time to stick a pin in this bubble once and for all. There are calls by some for an end to “overly realistic” modelling whereas there are and calls by others that this is simply the way forward. This, in the first of two articles that presents both sides of the equation, seeks to really open this debate up far and wide.

Before we begin, this is a debate that I myself have heard both sides of for quite some time. As such, through consultation with many industry figures, an account of the findings, concerns and considerations are presented here, with a response from the other side of the fence shortly following. In the meantime, let’s get back to basics and frame the debate accordingly. It is generally agreed that the important letter in the BIM acronym is the ‘I’ - Information is king certainly, but what exactly is information? Well in our case it can take many forms and data, the things that we can say about a product, is one of them. So by way of example let’s say that I have a pump and I ask how much water can it push? This is data. I need to fit it into my plant room, how big is the pump? The answer to this is data as well. But we need to go further.

“What needs to be considered above all else is exactly how the recipient of this information is going to consume it” Crucially, we could answer the latter question by simply using 2D dimensions, these would be wholly appropriate data, or we could answer it by using the appropriate geometry in a model file instead. Really, what needs to be considered above all else is exactly how the recipient of this information is going to consume it. So what will be important to the recipient? What are their needs? Let’s say that I am now an engineer and I am carrying out a conceptual design for my plant room. I have a very rough idea of the flow rate and of the pressure required of the pump, and

now I need to slot it into the plant room. At this stage, what I am not going to do is to put in something very specific, like a ‘Company A: Model B’ type of item, because this will almost definitely be the wrong product. I do not yet know what the actual pump characteristics are, I only have a rough idea. At this stage I really just want to use a rule of thumb or a first ‘best guess’ at what space a pump of this approximate duty will require. As space comes in three dimensions, then all I actually need is three pieces of data; length, width and height. I do not need to understand the

BIM JOURNAL

compound curves of the shell casing, I do not need to know which manufacturers make one of these items, I just need a volume. Pure and simple. I will then drop a volume object into my model to reserve that space for the pump. Into that I will enter my approximate duty values. So I myself have the model, me, the designer. This will come from my library of generic space reservation objects. It will stay with my model all the way, up to when my duties as a designer are done. I will change the geometry, I will add more data. But I don’t ever want to delete it and add something else, as I will then lose the data that I have spent so much time creating. The next party that we need to consider is the Contractor. They are going to buy a pump and then install it. But what is important to them? Of course the co-ordination of the pump with the other items in the plant room is going to be critical, so what data is needed to achieve that? Size and shape, the location of the connections, the access requirements and any supporting structures, these will all need to be known. In actual fact, this can be done by amending the designer’s object - I do

not need to go breaking the systems apart to change it to another file. In this vein, the designer and the contractor need consistency of data. As most projects have several things of a similar nature, in our example we have chosen pumps, we will need to create schedules of these things so that we can then order them. If data is added or imported into an existing modelled object, all of the parameters will be the same. For example, the Flow Rate parameter will be the same for each pump in my model. If I am obtaining objects from elsewhere, it is highly likely that these parameters will be different and as such, scheduling becomes much more difficult accordingly. The example schedule below (Figure 1) was generated using a popular BIM platform using three pumps downloaded from different content sources. Note that there are different columns for what looks like the same data, and that one has no data at all.

Figure 1 It has been said that “models don’t look as good as drawings used to” and if generic placeholders and volumes are being used, then they will certainly look different. But so what? Does it really matter? What we are trying to achieve here is the easy exchange of information between project partners. It is not a beauty pageant. This route to overly realistic modelling tends to be called ‘Hollywood BIM’ and it is argued by some in the industry as not being necessary. Largely because it takes longer to do, and it does not help anybody with anything at all. Backing up this argument is the fact that over-modelling also makes the overall file size of the model much larger than it needs to be. This affects the performance of the computer and the modelling programs and the platforms themselves, which costs the project time and money. BIM is supposed to be about generating efficiencies, reducing costs and exchanging the right data at the right time. No part of this involves 3D ‘colouring in’. So where do all of these super-realistic product specific models come from? Of course many third parties provide this facility as an add on service. Many people are employed to make objects and the business model says that they have to sell this service to make a profit, which is completely legitimate and fair. After all, as acknowledged in Article 2, outsourcing is vital when a skillset does not exist in house. However the ‘sell’ may tend to go to the marketing department of the manufacturer and it is rumoured to go something like “BIM has been mandated by the Government, so you need to have your products ‘BIM ready’ and we can help you out” hey presto, wonderful modelled objects. Whether these lack the technical rigour to be actually useful in terms of structured data can depend entirely upon who is doing the modelling, so be warned.

“I do not need to understand the compound curves of the shell casing”

BIM JOURNAL

“The designer and the contractor need consistency of data”

“It is not a beauty pageant”

One other way in which manufacturers may get cornered into developing these objects however, is by contractors telling them that they must supply modelled objects or they will not get specified. Many people do not appreciate that in a roundabout way, this is actually doing a disservice to the project. This is because the cost of developing this content must be passed on, which in turn is making BIM more expensive than ‘business as usual’ and it is not necessary anyway for the reasons outlined above. In terms of cost then different creators of content will charge very different rates, and the complexity of the product will be a factor too. Then there is the cost of hosting the files once produced, with many content companies providing the hosting for a fee, then the product will be developed some more, so the files will need to be amended, again for a fee. This is all adding up to a tidy sum that is not going to go into either R&D, profit sharing or shareholder dividends, but it will go into product pricing instead. Is that what we want? No. So as you can see there is opposition to how data is presented to the marketplace in some camps. Of course there is a lot of opposition to this view as well, indeed what of visualisation (which sells an idea or design to a client) or the fact mentioned in Article 1 that most items already exist as rich 3d geometry from the prototyping stage anyway? Besides, hardware will surely advance (and reduce in cost) to handle rich model files easily, so much so that a combination of beauty, data richness and integrity can all be combined? Is the debate even combining, unnecessarily, the as yet unrealised ‘potential’ of future solutions with the demands of today? Or are some items destined to be beautifully modelled (furniture) whereas others (pumps) are destined to remain generic and aesthetically unrefined? The opposing view is captured in earnest in the following article. On which side of the fence are you?

BIM JOURNAL

Six:

THE “GREAT DEBATE”: MODELS OR DATA? PART 2 In response to the prior article, calling for an end to overly realistic modelling or “Hollywood BIM” this article provides a look at the debate from the other side of the fence.

Indeed as outlined before, when it comes to realistic modelling then surely this is critical if only from a visualisation point of view? After all, this often sells an idea to a client in the first place? Plus most items already exist as rich 3d geometry from the prototyping stage anyway, so some manufacturers have a head start. But this concerns pixels and polygons solely. It is the data that counts overall, however looks can be vital and remodeling need not take place when realism is utilised from the start. When looking into this it will come as no surprise that many industry figures are prominent supporters of the availability of manufacturer objects. Professionals who see how real BIM objects are used in the real world every day are often stoic champions of realism, level of development permitting. Whatsmore a BIM object is merely a natural evolution from the days of old, when a manufacturer used to provide a stencil for architects to trace around, which then evolved into 2D cad blocks and details in later years. Whereas BIM objects not only contain accurate geometry but accurate data, materials and sometimes some parametric features that help the specifier to better specify the object. Well in the cold light of day many parties are now standardising their supply chain at present, and I know of one major housebuilder that has adopted BIM for all new house-type ranges, and are now digitally prototyping each house to a level where every component is a manufacturer object. This provides not only an improved time saving and

efficiency during the design, but they are now using these same models for marketing imagery, and linking them to their procurement and buying systems. I also know of at least one large supermarket chain who have also adopted digital models to manage their standard store types, as well as the supply chain. This ensures consistency across their projects even in an environment when, in this case, they are planning on rolling out over 200 new stores each year. It is argued that generic objects could not deliver what the housebuilder or the supermarket chain are doing, and as such their internal processes would take longer, involve double handling/ modelling and cost more money. Also, at present the BIM model is not a legal asset and the 2D outposts from the model are the contractual deliverable (there are exceptions). So what is stopping an architect or a designer from using manufacturer content but only extracting the generic data for their relevant stage outputs? After all, BIM is highly suited to this. Indeed it has been argued in the past that, by its very nature ‘generic’ content cannot be accurately coordinated, analysed or visualised in great detail, each of which are aspects of a typical BIM workflow. Furthermore if an architect uses a manufacturer ’s system, to design their curtain walling and to check that the design works, the software proving it works in that situation, a contractor swapping this out at a later date (probably on cost) means what could ultimately be specified is unsuitable for its application.

“Remodeling need not take place when realism is utilised from the start”

“Would an automobile manufacturer produce a digital prototype that is used for design, analysis and manufacture, do this using generic components?”

BIM JOURNAL

Also, and I hesitate to say this as it is a cliche nowadays, but if we look again at what every other industry has done can we learn from their head start? For example, would an automobile manufacturer produce a digital prototype that is used for design, analysis and manufacture, do this using generic components? What about in aerospace? Every modern aeroplane is designed, tested, constructed and operated based on a 1:1 digital prototype. Going further, almost every product is designed in a similar way these days, from an iPhone to a frying pan. A relevant example here is IKEA. All IKEA products are designed and tested inside of a computer to ensure design robustness, fabrication ability, and to allow the standardisation of parts. These models are also used for visualisation, so much so that 90% of all images in an IKEA magazine are digital renders. It has been positioned that many people on the generic side of the fence also mention PDT/S as a way for manufacturers to get on board with BIM, without the creation of BIM objects. While it is accepted and championed in both camps that PDTs are critical for consistent data, they are primarily seen by many as merely being a way for a manufacturer to pull together and organise all of their data consistently across their product range. This is a critical first step and it will give them an advantage of course, but providing this data in a parametric intelligent object , that ultimately helps the end user consume this in their software of choice to undertake some of the things mentioned earlier, is the logical next step. Indeed is the insistence of ‘only generic’ by some organisations and contracts holding back digital construction in the UK? Do we need to look at new ways of doing things, rather than fit old ways of working into this new digitised construction world? As pointed out in the prior article, when it comes to rich modelling provision hardware will surely advance (and so will cloud services and software accordingly) such that rich model files can be handled very easily. So much so that a combination of beauty, data richness and integrity can all be combined. Again this debate really does come down to the vision (and the will) of each manufacturer to look very hard at this and work out what they want in the short , mid and long term. PDTs are the low hanging fruit and definitely the first stop on the road to product digitisation, but they may well be the final destination for some. Time will tell and the type of product that the manufacturer provides may well dictate this. That said, there will always tend to be an internal clash between the desires of “marketing versus technical” but over the coming months and years these two departments really will need to get their heads together. Again, on which side of the fence are you?

BIM JOURNAL

Seven:

PRODUCT DATA TEMPLATES, SHEETS, BIMHAWK AND LEXiCON

Many enthusiasts in the manufacturing sector and beyond are of course already familiar with these terms. To the uninitiated however, the whole array of tools and options may seem baffling. As such, this article will unpick some of the common features, rumours and myths that surround the easy structuring and use of product data.

It is unsurprising that some manufacturers have had little appetite to engage with Level 2 BIM given the historic absence of a consensus on the scope and content of product data files. Yet the government requires Level 2 BIM to be the default for public sector projects and, as this sector provides 40% of the UK industry’s workload, manufacturers who continue to avoid Level 2 BIM face a loss of business to those that embrace it.[4] Accordingly, manufacturers need to consider the steps needed to honour data requirements for public and private sector clients, in a manner that removes the need to complete bespoke data sheets as requested from designers and contractors. This information must also be available across differing software platforms.[4] Now 3D geometry certainly looks nice and will always tend to steal the show, but the data that accompanies the object is what becomes the key differentiator in Level 2 BIM. Certainly many libraries of ‘generic’ products already exist, but, and this is in the Building Services industry particularly, few manufacturers offer models of their products containing the appropriate data.

Product Data Templates, ergo Product Data Sheets, go some way to address this.

Product Data Templates

Presented in an open neutral spreadsheet format, PDTs aim to anticipate the information sought by every party; from specification through operations to decommissioning and replacement. As such, their adoption and use can of course result in a huge efficiency saving for all parties involved.[4] Indeed at present, in any given category of product how the data is provided and what certain key characteristics are called varies not just between manufacturers but even within the same manufacturer itself.[5] As such, by adopting a standardised approach, so designed to service the information requirements of all types of user, manufacturers can nowadays prepare a product’s data once, digitally, in a manner that satisfies all project and user purposes in a consistent and uniform manner. This is the concept of Product Data Templates (PDTs) at least, which are essentially a standard ‘questionnaire’ for each equipment type.[4]

Indeed all PDTs follow the same standard format, which sees the first column comprising of three categories of information: Specification; Sustainability and Facilities / Asset Management. A second column sets out the parameters to be answered by the manufacturer, these answers being inputted as values in the third column, which need to correspond with the units given in the fourth column. The fifth column is simply for prompts and explanations. [4] Once the ‘values’ column has been completed, this changes the PDT into a PDS, a Product Data Sheet.[4] This is because the values now of course represent one specific item, and the spreadsheet itself is no longer an empty template. It is important to point out that PDTs only ask for the general product information. They do not contain any application-specific parameters (duty point criteria, cost, delivery, placement, etc) and obtaining this data remains part of the everyday process of enquiry and quotation. Business as usual.

BIM JOURNAL

“As BIM is a migration and not a race, getting everybody over the line is what really counts”

PDT development groups include contractors, designers, consultants, manufacturers, building operators, maintenance specialists and clients[5] and other industry participants such as the NBS also provide a suite of PDTs as part of the BIM Toolkit provision. These are freely available and users can pick and choose which provider they would like to use. Indeed to bring a consistent and coordinated approach the NBS have been working closely with CIBSE, CPA and BIM4M2 as part of an initiative to deliver a single set of master templates, which is a much clearer message for industry overall. [6]

Product Data Sheets

When a manufacturer completes a PDT it becomes a Product Data Sheet (PDS), a digital

description of the product. In the case of the enormous suite of templates offered by CIBSE, providing the manufacturer then respects the terms of use of the PDT, the manufacturer owns the PDS outright and is free to use it on its website and in any library it chooses. The manufacturer remaining responsible for the accuracy and completeness of its data on the PDS in the normal way. For the other parties, the standard format of the PDS enables users to automate their data operations, such that each person is able to abstract only the information that they want. In short, answering ‘graduated’ questions posed at different project stages can be done by computers instead, and not people. PDSs can also go some way to simplify the tasks faced by sales and technical teams as

well, by obviating ‘bespoke’ questionnaires used across the industry. Many supplementary queries can also be avoided. It is incredible that some manufacturers are still not fully on board with this but they are quite seemingly getting there. As BIM is a migration and not a race, getting everybody over the line is what really counts.

BIMHawk

How to tackle this. Right, as software applications large and small are these days generally referred to as ‘tools’ BIMHawk is a collection of tools developed by CIBSE, to assist with the creation of Product Data Templates, Product Data Sheets, and the subsequent migration of this information into other software applications.

BIM JOURNAL

To begin with, it uses the logic of providing a suite of thousands of PDTs in an online repository that manufacturers can readily access and use. But it complements this offering with a suite of software programs and utilities for creating, managing and integrating PDTs & PDSs with other digital systems as well (native BIM authoring applications, for example).[7] As captured on the BIMHawk website, one problem is that manufacturers have set about creating BIM object libraries of their products, but many have been created prior to the development of an agreed industry standard for product datasets.[7] Also, and this is one for developers to worry about really, but the complexities of modern BIM systems mean that standardising product data is not the only issue faced. As mainstream BIM systems also require that each individual object ‘parameter’ must also be created with a common Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) as well. In many cases the ‘Parameter’ names are simply aliases and it is the underlying GUID that is used to manipulate and manage the data.[7] This being a phenomenon that was examined in greater detail in BIM Journal Issue One (openBIM). Now with this in mind, for the non-technical layman, what is especially useful about the BIMHawk tool is that when individual parameters are created within BIMHawk, it performs a dynamic check with the Building Smart Data Dictionary (bsDD) to see if the parameter name has been previously defined. If the parameter name exists in the Data Dictionary, its GUID is extracted and used within BIMHawk. If no such entry exists, BIMHawk generates its own definition and associated GUID.[7] Critically, once these GUID’s are mapped to parameters in BIMHawk, they remain consistent. BIMHawk tools for outputting PDT XML or generating Revit Shared Parameter files then utilise these consistent GUID’s. Simple. Sort of. As a result of this, the BIMHawk Revit plugin for example, can directly and instantly bind a PDT dataset to any Revit Family or Project. The plugin also has the ability to update any matching parameters within existing Families to the BIMHawk standard. This feature also has the potential to correct and align any existing Revit objects created by manufacturers.[7] Hopefully this presents the BIMHawk toolset in a nutshell, and rest assured that work is already underway to support other popular BIM platforms. What I will now attempt to unravel is LEXiCON, which can be another important but misunderstood industry headscratcher.

“When individual parameters are created within BIMHawk, it performs a dynamic check with the Building Smart Data Dictionary” LEXiCON

LEXiCON is an initiative that works by attempting to provide a plain language dictionary and data templates, based on existing industry expertise and consensus. So while something like BIMHawk provides an online repository of PDTs, LEXiCON provides the governance to create, define and group the information that goes into them in the first place. The key to LEXiCON is indeed the governance behind it, and ensuring that the terms are approved by industry itself and can be used and shared with confidence. To facilitate this industry wide, terms and templates will be governed by “Relevant Authorities” who will be organisations or individuals with expertise relevant to particular products or activities. By way of example, CIBSE will be a “Senior Relevant Authority” meaning that they also have other Relevant Authorities feeding into them. It is then the role of a Relevant Authority to approve proposed properties, property sets, product data templates and sources. This unique methodology will then deliver a tangible digital data exchange while also providing the collaboration that industry needs. So LEXiCON itself is more about the “who’s in a position to do what, and how” in a nutshell. Now this may well be an endeavour that takes some unpicking alone I imagine, but large steps forward like this can indeed be taken by a unified industry when the right heads are put together, so watch this space.

BIM JOURNAL

99 construction companies helped 679 hours of assessment delivered 7 technical qualifications 1 Gary Pattison Meet the professional behind BSI’s leading BIM certification schemes. Working closely with a wide range of clients from global leaders to SMEs and micro-businesses, Gary translates complex standards into relevant and practical programmes that bring positive business benefits. “My team and I listen to our clients’ challenges and needs”, said Gary. “Our role is not only to make sure that certification schemes meet those needs exactly, but provide expert support at every stage. We constantly benchmark processes, so when we assess clients, they have concrete evidence that they have interpreted the standard correctly. That brings real peace of mind.” This level of expertise and insight, unique in our industry, adds real value to BIM businesses - helping them win new customers, deliver an exceptional service and make excellence a habit.

Find out how BSI can help your business make excellence a habit. Call 0333 9209 788* or email bim@bsigroup.com *Calls are charged at local rate from a BT landline. Call charges made from other operators and via mobile phones may vary depending on your service provider.

BIM JOURNAL

Eight:

FIVE PRACTICAL LESSONS FOR MANUFACTURERS WHEN BIM MODELLING

In this guest article, here is Gavin Summerson, Senior Certification Manager at BSI to offer advice and to tell us more. Over to Gavin...

For manufacturers taking their first steps toward modeling their products in BIM, it can be daunting knowing where to start. Do I need to provide 3D BIM Objects? In what format, to what level of detail and what data do I need to provide to my customers? Will my investment in BIM drive a return, and can I be sure I’m delivering a quality product to my clients? To assist in the migration to BIM, we’ve put together five practical lessons based on our experience of assessing manufacturers for compliance with BSI’s new BIM Object Kitemark™.

1.Know your customer

It is easy to assume that providing highly rich 3D BIM objects will automatically add value. However, it is important to stop and consider whether the BIM content will actually improve the experience for your customers. While BIM may ultimately be essential to getting specified, your clients may only need your data not an actual BIM object. Providing accurate, well designed BIM objects may be the right way to go if there is a requirement for high levels of coordination. Before you invest make sure you check with the customer. Throughout the process you should regularly check in with them to make sure the content you are providing is helping to provide a solution. Your BIM content after-all is another shop window, poor BIM content will lead to a poor impression of your products.

2. Stay up to date on your standards

Following the adoption of the level 2 BIM definition, implementation of BIM in the UK and around the globe is very standards centric. In Dubai, a major government agency, the Roads and Transportation Authority is amongst the most recent recipients of the BSI BIM Kitemark. The rapid global spread of standards is being driven by the needs of design and construction teams which need to collaborate

BIM JOURNAL

faster, more accurately and with greater transparency. The BIM standards landscape is evolving all the time and it is important to keep up to date to ensure consistency across the supply chain. The easiest way to stay up to date is to visit www.BIMLevel2.org where BSI hosts the BIM Level 2 platform. An especially important standard is BS 1192-4 as it defines the format of information for exchange (COBie). At the end of a construction project a contractor may be required to provide a COBie file and so will need your product information. In reality a full COBie is sometimes not required and client needs will be defined by the essential maintenance requirements of the facilities management team involved. Commonly expected COBie attributes cover what the product is, its classification (e.g. Uniclass), dimensional data, who manufactured it and how to obtain warranty information. To assist in pulling together this information, BS 8541 parts 1, 3 and 4 provide useful guidance on naming conventions, classification, shape, measurement, performance and specification attributes. Standardising your data is a sensible starting point, and the first step toward this is the definition of a robust product data template. PAS 1192-7 is currently under development and will provide a consistent approach for defining product data and product data templates. Before this is finalized we advise you to engage with your trade association to check common parameters for your product types. There are live initiatives by the CPA to support this through the LEXICON project and the CIBSE BIMHawk tool, which provide a good platform for managing product data templates.

3. Know when to stop

Modelling your products to a high level of detail may seem like a good idea, but consider what level is appropriate. A common error is to provide too much data, with the result that when several hundred of your products are inserted into a BIM model it significantly slows things down, costing time and money. BS 8541-3 defines three levels of detail including schematic, coordinated and visualisation. At a minimum, products should be modelled

to a coordinated level of detail. Ultimately this comes back to lesson one, knowing your customer, so make sure to ask what level of detail is required.

4. Keep it together

With so much data being produced across a variety of formats by multiple teams, it is important to standardise how data is managed and created. BS 1192 defines a common data environment and can help streamline and improve quality by ensuring all data is held centrally as a ‘single source of truth’ with a process for checking, authorising and archiving data. A central database with a standardised structure and naming conventions (i.e. a Product Information Management System) can be a smart move to help manage this as you can link this to other internal systems or create APIs to external platforms.

5. Focus on quality

Validating information or potential impacts on design depends on the accuracy of your product data. Sub-standard BIM models have a massive impact on-site, adding time and expense and frustrating clients. It is important to have a clear process for checking the quality of your BIM. Even the largest and most respected companies are liable to errors, so validation of data, particularly dimensional and performance data, is really important.

Conclusion

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is now an essential element of the built environment sector, providing clear benefits to all involved. The UK Government alone estimates it has already saved £840m through the use of BIM, representing average project savings of 20%.[8] Following the above five steps can greatly smooth the path of adoption, and regardless of where you are on your own BIM journey, the new BSI Kitemark™ for BIM objects can help you demonstrate your commitment to best practice. For more information, please visit www.bsigroup.com/BIM-UK

BIM JOURNAL

Make Data Exchange Simple

BIM JOURNAL

Shape the Future Digital Construction

Shape the future of our world with innovative technologies and solutions aligned to Building Information Modelling (BIM) principles.

Learn more: Download the e-book >

Leica Geosystems AG leica-geosystems.com

BIM JOURNAL

Nine: THE IMPORTANCE OF INDUSTRY WORKING GROUPS

Here we invite Matt Crunden, Training and BIM Manager at Legrand UK & Ireland, to offer his take on the state of play for BIM within the electrical industry and how industry working groups are assisting with the process. Over to you Matt...

For all intents and purposes, Building Information Modelling (BIM) was designed to enable greater efficiencies in both the design and build phases of a construction project and then, for the full lifecycle of a building. Why, then, has it encountered so much resistance in the years to date? On the surface, BIM represents an excellent opportunity to foster closer working relationships with a host of different stakeholders within the electrical industry, and beyond. For example, associated working

groups provide a valuable opportunity to sit down with competitors and discuss the issues and opportunities that all of our customers face, particularly around digitising product data into a structured, consistent format which can then be used by many different parties to unlock future savings and improvements. BIM also provides an opportunity to collaborate with contractors and consultants, in a manner that simply has not been possible in the past. Whatsmore, through working groups we

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Working groups provide a valuable opportunity to sit down with competitors and discuss the issues and opportunities that all of our customers faceâ&#x20AC;?

are able to use available data to collectively explore how the future might look, and discuss how BIM could open new trading markets with our European counterparts. While the wealth of opportunity that BIM presents is exciting, we cannot escape the fact it comes at a cost. Be it funding, learning, or even just accepting and buying into the fact that BIM is here to stay, these are not all simple obstacles to overcome. With the manufacturing community in a state of flux, a lot rides on those embracing BIM

BIM JOURNAL

– and all it can offer - convincing those either unable or unwilling to give it a shot. A number of collaborative, cross-industry organisations and working groups have been set up over the last few years to help drive the BIM message forward, including the BIM4 Communities and the CIBSE Society for Digital Engineering (SDE). Now under the UK BIM Alliance umbrella, the BIM4 Communities are a collaboration of special interest groups that champion BIM in their respective areas. BIM4M2 is the active working group concerned with BIM for the manufacturing community, and was formed in 2014 by the Construction Products Association (CPA) although it operates independently. In 2015, BIM4M2 members designed and launched a web based tool called ‘The Curve’, which can be used to assess the likely impact of BIM on a manufacturer’s business, and to help them on their way to creating, implementing and measuring a BIM business plan. The Curve comprises of three tools: ‘The Compass’, ‘How Do I Do It?’ and finally ‘Learn More’. The Curve can be a key driver of knowledge as it has been built by the industry, for the industry.

Ultimately, the group’s long-term vision is for the UK construction product manufacturing sector to be recognised as a world leader in both the integration of BIM, and the supply of products and solutions to the built environment. In order to drive this vision, the BIM4M2 working group recently underwent a refresh in order to deliver its objectives. CIBSE is another major driving force for BIM, and it has placed great emphasis on increasing the percentage of engineering tasks being conducted in a purely digital environment through the launch of its Society of Digital Engineering (SDE). The SDE will provide a community for accreditation, training and career advancement for all engineers working digitally across building services and its supply chain, including clients. To date, there has been no real information hub to share knowledge for both newly qualified and vastly experienced engineers who are keen to embrace digital technology to further their career. CIBSE’s SDE is designed to meet this need. The emergence of working groups has certainly been one of the success stories relating to BIM, however the absence of sufficient funding is likely to be a difficult bar-

rier to overcome, given many BIM working groups are essentially run by volunteers. While their effort cannot be faulted, the fact of the matter is these volunteers must balance championing BIM with their own careers so their time is not an infinite resource. That said, these working groups provide an excellent learning environment for both the novice and the seasoned BIM performer. With the amount of funding needed yet to materialise, I would strongly encourage stakeholders from all areas of the built environment to get involved and work together as an industry to ensure BIM can reach its true potential, because if it does, everyone stands to gain. As we know, the ‘I’ in BIM is the most important thing of all: information. However, it is the structuring of this information into a clear, consistent, machine-readable format that is posing the greatest challenge for manufacturers. Despite the whole process having been frustratingly slow, thankfully tools are emerging which will allow this structuring to happen.

“Working groups provide an excellent learning environment for both the novice and the seasoned BIM performer”

As one of the leading manufacturers of products for electrical and digital infrastructures across the built environment, there are a number of ways Legrand can help to deliver BIM integration. From a purely functional perspective, a huge number of our cable management, under-desk power distribution, buscom trunking and energy controls products are available as both 3D objects and structured data, in the form of Product Data Templates (PDTs). Legrand is also the first electrical manufacturer to achieve the new BSI Kitemark for BIM objects. The new Kitemark demonstrates that the dimensional, performance and specification data related to a product has been validated and that this is presented and structured correctly, using standardised templates. It also proves that the manufacturer’s processes meet the requirements of BIM and that the object will function properly when placed within a digital model. However, where Legrand really comes into its own as a company is the expertise that it can lend to a project. Access to specialist product knowledge and experience first-hand will always be an integral part of the specification stage. While our roles and responsibilities may change as BIM projects develop, ultimately the concept of collaborative working – and all of the benefits that it will lead to – can only be realised if all parties are willing to embrace it. For more information on Legrand UK & Ireland, please visit: www.legrand.co.uk.

BIM JOURNAL

Ten:

CONCLUSION: BIM FOR MANUFACTURERS

As you can see it is all go in the manufacturing sector. The easy sharing of digital data sorry, the easy sharing of detailed accurate and structured digital data should be at the forefront of any manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mind, especially as the tools are there and readily available to outsource or use.

BIM JOURNAL

“We have kickstarted a Product’s realm at The BIM Hub to help manufacturers to share their products even further”

Sure there are many choices that manufacturers need to make and for many, the impact that BIM is bringing to the industry needs to be featured in a few more meeting rooms throughout the land. Indeed the end game really does need to be borne in mind here and meticulous planning will be needed. Now once this product information is digitised, albeit through a realistic model and supporting data or merely via a completed PDS, as BIM champions through and through we have kickstarted a Product’s realm at The BIM Hub to help manufacturers to share their products even further and wider. This has been assisted by partnering in a collaborative manner with forward thinking object providers who want the best exposure for the manufacturers on their books, with direct to

manufacturer sharing also being possible. The key is to provide an open and neutral platform than anybody can “plug into” and better distribute their wares. Indeed if you are an object provider or a manufacturer with a great many products then we will assist of course via the use of APIs. But know that we are matchmakers and do not intend to host or model any items ourselves, although we can put people in touch there. That said, in closing it is hoped that this edition of BIM Journal provided enlightenment in what is clearly an important yet frequently unsung sector of the industry. Through the words of key industry players the articles that were presented in this issue duly looked at the current landscape that manufacturers face; the standards in use and their

significance; the emerging PAS 1192-7 standard; the “great debate” around generic items versus fully modelled 3d items; the BIMhawk tool and the significance and meaning of product data templates; LEXiCON; working groups and the BSI Kitemark. If you are a manufacturer operating in this sector then not only should you remember to add your products to the emerging realm (or nudge your hosting partner to do so) but also encourage your comms/marketing team to add any relevant news and case studies directly to The BIM Hub as well, for the wider community to learn more about. In the meantime best wishes on your BIM journey and remember to subscribe for more updates as they happen.

BIM JOURNAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. What is a Standard? British Standards Institute (BSI) https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/Information-about-standards/what-is-a-standard/ 2. What is a PAS? British Standards Institute (BSI) https://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigate-by/PAS/ 3. Avanti, Constructing Excellence. http://constructingexcellence.org.uk/resources/avanti/ 4. Product Data Templates, CIBSE http://www.cibse.org/knowledge/bim-building-information-modelling/product-data-templates 5. Product Data Template FAQs, BIMtalk http://bimtalk.co.uk/pdts:faqs 6. Update to Product Data Templates, RIBA Insight https://www.riba-insight.com/monthlyBriefing/15-12/update-to-product-data-templates-makes-it-even-easier-to-align-your-product-information-to-level-bim.asp 7. About BIMHawk, BIMHawk https://www.bimhawk.co.uk/bimhawk.php 8. Launch of Digital Built Britain, BIM Task Group http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/launch-of-digital-built-britain/

BIM JOURNAL

theBIMhub.com

the definitive online resource

for BIM companies & professionals

the world over

BIM JOURNAL