Eastman’s Chapter “Interoperability” (BIM Handbook) discusses the importance of the technological issues of
interoperability that architects, contractors, engineers and fabricators will
face, which has previously been a topic concerned mainly by computer/software
engineers. Interoperability can be simply described as being the facilitation
of data transfer or exchange between two different programs. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) defines it as “the ability to
manage and communicate electronic product and project data between
collaborating firms’ and within individual companies’ design, construction,
maintenance, and business process systems,” (Aranda-Mena & Wakefield). As
engineering students at Drexel, most of us have seen this on a simpler scale
during the Evaluation and Presentation of Experimental Data course sequence,
where we were required to pull data from an excel file and analyze it using
Matlab. Interoperability within BIM is one of the major challenges in that
field, as it is beginning to evolve into an interface for information exchanges
among different parties involved on a single project—thus creating issues of
proper data transfer.
Dr. Guillermo Aranda-Mena and Prof. Ron Wakefield’s journal
article for RMIT University explores the concept of interoperability and if we
can afford to ignore it. According to the NIST report that they cited, in the United
States the cost of omitting interoperability is estimated at $15.8 billion. Factors in this approximation of ignoring
interoperability among software systems included CAD software, project programming,
and scheduling tools. One thing I found
interesting was the question they bring up is who exactly should drive the
progress of interoperability. Is it the client’s responsibility in order to
reduce cost? One of the main keys to
production improvement in construction relies heavily on efficiently managing
information, so the contractors and engineers both have incentives to work more
efficiently as well.
For interoperability to work, there is a need for standards
to be set in place, such as having a common language for softwares/systems to
communication with each other. Currently the Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs)
and the Standard for the Exchange of Product model data (STEP-ISO) are in use
in the property and construction sectors. Benefits of IFCs include automatic
compilation of bills of material in a digital form (ultimately increasing
savings by reducing time and errors), climate and energy simulation of all the spaces
(also saves time, helps find better solutions for energy saving) and also
results in fewer coordination errors.
References:
- Aranda-Mena, Guillermo & Wakefield, Ron. “Interoperability of Building Information: Myth or Reality?” RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Eastman, C. "Chapter 3: Interoperability." BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Engineers and Contractors.
- “Software and Systems Modeling.”
Mark Lodato
William Whitesell
Yasmina, fascinating article you cited on the cost of omitting interoperability. I can see how most of the savings would travel through the structure of project management directly to the owners, but the architect’s and contractor’s savings are not insignificant compared to the owners. So on paper the owner has the largest incentive to drive innovation in interoperability, but I wonder how able they are to be impactful in that position? The designers and contractors are who interoperability directly affects, thus know what is needed in its development. Working in construction on my last CoOp, better interoperability from Tekla could have made a lot of our work unnecessary. This seems to raise a separate issue: that most in our industry don’t know or some don’t care about software, and the odds are most software architects don’t particularly care for the building industry. I think the biggest challenge to the further development of interoperability may be the collaboration of those two traditionally separate industries, and less who the burden of driving progress falls under.
ReplyDeleteYasmina,
ReplyDeleteYou hit a lot of points that I did not think much about while reading. I agree that there has to be an agreeable standard for common language in programs. Unfortunately, companies are not always so easy in 'conforming' to a single language. Take phone chargers for example, in 2013 The European Union passed a law requiring ALL companies to make the same type of charger (to reduce electronic waste), hence why a lot of our phones are charged by the Micro-USB connector. Apple found a way around this by selling adapters that can connect their charger into a micro-USB. Companies will always find a way around standards unless they can all agree on their own, or users demand it.
The benefits are right in front of us and the returns can be endless, all we need if for the users (us) to demand programs and systems to be coded with a similar language.
Interoperability seems to correlate to chapter 4 from the owners and managers perspective. In this chapter one section investigates the loss of integration that exists between the owner and builder. This disconnect is responsible for a loss in efficiency of the construction process as well as the buildings potential in order to offer a maximum return on investment. In this case dealing with operability it seems the disconnect is from a technical standpoint. Where the loss of efficiency is in the ability of separate programs to communicate with one another and maximize efficiency in the design stage of a building.
ReplyDeleteYasmina,
ReplyDelete15.8 billion is an outrageous amount! It is interesting to note that back in the day when computers were not used in the construction industry, this problem of not able to share data between architects/engineers was non-existent thus saving the cost of interoperability limitations i.e. 15.8 billion! Technology is developed to solve problems and reduce costs, hence the use of software in construction such as CAD is reducing costs by making it easier to produce drawing however at the same time adding interoperability costs which are unnecessary. BIM in this case is a possible solution to this problem as it facilitates interoperability in architecture, engineering and construction industry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete