This will be my last post in this series. I hope you thought about how our industry could operate differently…better. We get so caught up in our daily fights that we often don’t consider the future. I’m proposing you take some time to think about how your work could change, how things could be done better. Then put forth some effort to move things in that direction.

Whether you own your own business or work for others, your value depends on what you deliver now and how you improve in the future. Please commit to improving both those measures. You’ll be glad you did.

The video gives a good visual introduction to BIM.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bxtBVkw1g]

One of the features that will ultimately be most useful will be 4D modeling. Obviously the 3D model shows the various building components. If we assign time as the next dimension (4D) we can build the model to show how it will look each day of construction. Think of the advantages of being able to design the exact construction sequence on a tricky project all in advance. Also, that information can be communicated to everyone involved, keeping all stakeholders working in the same  direction.

It’s a small stretch to go from 4D to 5D, which could show which materials or equipment or labor is needed at each moment in time and each location. Imagine how these technologies will change what we do.

I encourage you to take some time to think and learn about where our industry is headed. You’ll certainly have a better seat when we get there!

In the previous post on this topic, I discussed the potential power of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and of decreasing productivity in construction trades. For many years, I’ve understood the industry fails in building design and planning. All parties allow the acceptable level of performance to be so low, then we resolve things in the field. This pattern harms construction productivity more than any other factor.

Owners, Architects/Engineers and construction Project Managers have failed to achieve good designs and planning. Too many traditions remain from the early 1900s, things like shop drawings really showing all the critical information. This process allows A/Es to be sloppy in their design, knowing what they show isn’t what anyone builds from.

Let’s consider structural steel. The structural engineer lays out a grid and sizes members, but doesn’t design the connections (which are the most critical element of the design, i.e. most likely to fail). The old rationale for this procedure was that various steel fabricating shops did their connections differently and there were cost benefits to letting them decide. In current times, any steel shop can do any connections. The Structural Engineers just don’t want the liability of fully designing the steel…and it’s just the way we do things.

We miss an opportunity for truly efficient design, with one party (the Structual Engineer) going through the design process one time, correctly. The current method also keeps everyone else that works around the structural steel somewhat vague about what will really be installed. So the trim carpenter doesn’t really know how the framing of the columns can be detailed since the connections aren’t clear. Also, the duct and sprinkler contractors have to make assumptions in their shop drawings which may or may not be correct.

Have you ever struggled with the system as it currently works? What improvements could occur? How?