icccbe 2010
© Nottingham University Press
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering W Tizani (Editor)
Developing incentives for collaboration in the AEC Industry
Akponanabofa Henry Oti & Walid Tizani
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nottingham, UK
Abstract
The Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry is highly multi-disciplinary and
needs good collaboration for efficient, effective and timely project delivery. However, the industry is
not yet enjoying the maximum benefits that may accrue from making full use of collaboration because
of its fragmented nature and the resulting challenges. As such, there have been a lot of activities on
research, process and product development both in the industry and the academia around the world to
enhance collaboration in the AEC industry. This calls for incentives in the areas of sponsorship;
supportive educational frameworks; directed policies; commitment from establishments and
professional bodies; and attention on identified conflict-prone existing arrangements etc. This paper
examines these issues and attempts to presents a holistic approach, based on literatures, to the
development of collaboration in the AEC industry in order to set the stage for harnessing the
associated benefits to the fullest.
Keywords: AEC industry, BIM, collaboration, incentives, stakeholders
1
Introduction
A number of authors (Kvan, 2000; Leeuwen and Fredqvist, 2006) have attempted distinguishing
between the terms cooperation and collaboration in relation to the AEC industry. The latter is seen as
a relationship of stronger commitment and bond among stakeholders. Rolstone (2001) describe
collaboration as a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more
researchers or organizations to achieve common goals. It is a durable and persuasive relationship that
requires greater commitment to a common goal with an attendant increase in risk (Mattessich and
Monsey, 1992; Kvan, 2000). Normally, it is expected that the degree of benefit that will accrue from
any activity should be a reflection of the magnitude of commitment and risks involved. For
collaboration to be thus described then the benefits to the AEC industry must be enormous enough to
advance the industry to a higher level. This is already being hypothesized by various researchers and
IT developers/users in the industry (Autodesk, 2003; Graphisoft, 2003; Coleman and Jun, 2005;
Ashcraft, 2008; CPIC, 2008; Murphy, 2009).
However, most of these hypotheses are centred on information technology (IT) – the efficacy and
power of building information modelling (BIM), and virtual reality and prototyping (VRP) to a lesser
extent. It is quite understandable as these actions are directed towards canvassing wide acceptability
of BIM and VRP as a collaborative framework to succeed traditional CAD models in expressing
details of contract documents in the AEC industry (Ashcraft, 2008). The authors of this report support
the view of Kvan (2000) that achieving collaboration in the AEC industry goes beyond the innovative
prowess IT can ever garner to creating a synchronised work process and enabling environment. This
seems to be augmented by Succar’s (2009) attempt to summarise and delineate BIM activity into a
trio-intersecting venn of process, policy and technology (Figure 1.0). As such, advancements in IT
must be balanced by developing supportive frameworks or incentives in other aspect of the industry
development. These areas are identified and discussed in this paper. The objective is to highlight the
need for establishing incentives for collaboration based on AEC activities. The next section (Section
2) briefly discusses the current state of collaboration in the industry; Section 3 points out some key
areas/issues that require incentives; an overview for the way forward is given in Section 4; and
Section 5 concludes the paper.
Figure 1, Interlocking fields of BIM activity (Source: Succar, 2008)
2
The current trends of collaboration in the AEC industry
Where are we; where do we want to be; and how do we get there (Wilson et al, 1992)? These are
strategic marketing questions all stakeholders in the AEC industry must attempt to unanimously
define and provide answers to - in order to foster collaboration and advance the industry. Borrowing
from the combined work (Figure 2.0) of Bew and Richards (2008) as in Snook (2009), the industry is
looking forward to moving into the era (Phase 3) of fully integrated and interoperable BIM
implementation. However as seen from the figure, the industry is largely at ‘Phase 0’, where about
95% of industry stakeholders work non-collaboratively - based on CAD models. The remaining 5%
are just beginning to gain ground in phases 1 and 2, using 2D/3D tools and BIM models respectively.
This work is in line with theme of this report on developing incentives for collaboration as it is a
product of the combined efforts of professionals from Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA),
Construction Project Information Committee (CPIC), BuildingSMART and others to define and
delineate some issues/terms for general acceptability in the BIM implementation process (CPIC,
2008).
Before Wong et al (2009) reviewed the comparative roles of stakeholders for BIM implementation
process in Singapore and Scandinavian countries, Worksepp and Tullberg (2001) made a report on the
application of virtual reality in construction and revealed that quite an ample of novel IT is already
going on in universities in the UK and Scandinavian countries. In the UK, while there is good
research collaboration between the industry and the academia, it is just beginning to build up in the
Scandinavian countries. Elsewhere in USA and Japan, novel IT activities are on high scale like the
UK which together may make up most of the 5% in phases 1 and 2. There have also been good
contributions from Australia in related research activities but nothing has been heard or seen from
Africa within the limits of this report – an indication that Africa is largely at ‘Phase 0’.
Figure 2, CAD-BIM trend in the AEC Industry (Source: Bew and Richards, 2008 as in Snook, 2009)
3
Addressing areas/issues for collaboration
The interactions among stakeholders in the AEC industry are illustrated in Figure 3.0. The academia
is obviously a stakeholder in AEC activities and is of great importance to the enhancement of
collaboration. It maintains a loop with the industry but also converges in the promulgation of laws and
policies; at conferences and workshops etc - in government circles, professional bodies and job tasks.
Incentives developed based on these interactions will be fundamental to the overall promotion of
collaboration as discussed in the sections that follow.
3.1
Collaborative educational framework
Education still remains the bedrock of collaboration because it helps to inculcate collaboration as a
culture in individuals from their youth. In primary and secondary level, collaboration may develop via
knowledge building communities in the form of team/group work (So et al, 2009) but ought to be
more focused and directed at tertiary institutions, especially in AEC related programmes. Research
reports on collaboration of students in multi-disciplinary design using IT tools from USA (Soibelman
et al, 2000; Finger et al, 2006), Australia (Plume and Mitchell, 2007) and China (Brian and Barrett,
2000) expose the need to bridge the gap in AEC programme curricula. A good incentive will be to
design and start running collaboration-focused IT based programmes/courses that will convene AEC
students (co-located and otherwise) in the course of their training in the tertiary institutions. It is also
possible to look at the option of pulling all AEC related programmes closer into a faculty for the
purpose of achieving collaborative learning. The onus falls back on the AEC education policy makers
and professional bodies alike.
GOVERNMENT, PROFESSIONAL BODIES, COMMITTEES, EMPLOYERS/CLIENTS Research findings Human resources Novel technologies Consultancy Laws Policies Ethics Conferences Workshops Contracts AEC INDUSTRY
ACADEMIA Tertiary level Secondary Primary level Research funds Technology needs Resource Persons Architect Structural Engr HVAC Engr Qty surveyor Managers Lawyers Contractors Figure 3, Stakeholder-Interactions in the AEC activities
3.2
Inventory and integration of AEC technology tools for advancement
BIM and VRP seem to be the foremost technology tools in AEC industry presently but with various
names (Succar, 2008; and CPIC, 2008) with a lot of varied efforts all around the globe. This is
obviously because of the early development stages but it is high time the activities be harmonized and
a comprehensive inventory taken. This will help to filter the most advanced efforts for further
concentration and improvement. Energy will not also be expended on developing areas and stages the
most advanced tools have scaled, although dependent on proprietary. While commending the efforts
of various software developers (Table 1.0) the issue of interoperability should be a paramount
consideration which also promotes collaboration. It suffices to mention here the contributions of
Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs) on interoperability but researchers (Kam et al, 2003; Bakis et al,
2007) have commented that more needs to be done and BuildingSMART has not relented on their
efforts.
Table 1, Some AEC software and developers
BASE
S/N
SOFTWARE
DEVELOPERS
AREAS
1
BuilderMT
BuilderMT
Management,
CAD
Revit Architecture
Revit Structure
Revit MEP
Autodesk
Architecture
Structure engineering
Mechanical and plumbing
USA
2
3
Horizontal Glue
Horizontal LLC
BIM data management
USA
4
Onuma Planning system
Onuma
WEB based project management
USA/Japan
5
Vico constructor
Vico
Architecture,
Structural and MEP
USA
6
DProfiler
Beck Technology
Estimation
USA
7
ArchiCAD 12
Graphisoft
Architecture
Hungary
8
Envisioneer
Cadsoft
Architecture
USA
9
Aveva Plan
Aveva
Plant Architecture, engineering
USA
10
VisionREZ
Ameri-CAD
Architecture, estimation
USA
11
Tekla Structures
Tekla International
Structural engineering
Finland
12
MicroStation
Bentley Systems
Architectural, Engineering, Construction
USA
13
Codebook
Project Blueprint
CAD Building information modelling
Australia
14
DDS-CAD
Data Design Systems
Tools for BIM
Norway
15
NavisWorks Jetstream
NavisWorks acquired by
Autodesk in 2007
Interporability software for
CAD, CAM and BIM
UK
16
VectorWorks
Nemetschek N. America
Architecture
Columbia
17
Graitech
Graitech
CAD, CAE software ( Structural)
France
18
IDEA
4M
Architectural, ( structural, HVAC)
Greece
3.3
Estimation,
accounting,
Solving information sharing and proprietary issues
A major setback to collaboration is the intricacies of information/data sharing, roles, ownership and
liabilities. Questions have been raised (Amor and Faraj, 2000; CRC, 2003; and Ashcroft, 2008) on
these issues and the earlier widely accepted answers in form of laws and policies are provided the
easier it will be for collaboration to thrive in the AEC industry. Some work, triggered from the
success recorded in the Avanti Project on collaboration, has been done by CPIC (2008) giving rise to
the publication of BS 1192:2007, the latest Code of Practice for Collaborative Production of AEC
information. Though, the code does not give guidance on the use and exchange of different data file
formats, non-graphic data, data structures, or object classes. Thus, appropriate teams of this sort comprising construction lawyers, software proprietary and licensing legal practitioners and other
industry resource persons should be set up to examine these issues on a wider perspective and come
up with workable international documents.
3.4
Experimenting collaboration in pilot projects
The benefits from collaboration in the AEC have been mentioned by various researchers but the
challenge lies on how to spread the goods. One excellent way of doing this is through pilot projects.
Reports (Kam et al, 2003) on the experiences from the Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium
Hall 600 (HUT-600) project in Finland have been quite helpful in expounding lessons from the
implementation process of IFC in the project. Projects such as this will help to highlight areas that
need attention either in the processes or tools employed in product delivery. The more pilot projects
spread around the globe, the wider the impact of collaboration that will be felt. This paper suggests
that government across nations and continents, employers/client, major industry players and well
meaning stakeholders to experiment on pilot projects using the foremost IT tools.
3.5
Government, industry and academia research collaboration
The academia is the main place for research, although many major industry players have their own inhouse research departments. In the UK collaboration between Government, the industry; and the
academia has been good (Worksepp and Tullberg, 2001) but other countries that have not exploited
this medium well enough need to do same. Research proposals should be encouraged by Government
and the Industry by providing necessary sponsorship where needed. While the academia search out
further research areas, the feedback from experiences in the industry can also help in defining
research themes. Thus, process and product development, including IT tools can be improved through
research. Further, human capacity building is usually created in the research process which essentially
drifts back into the industry.
4
The way forward
Clearly, the issues discussed above require resources - in terms of funds, expert-knowledge, energy
and time - to be tackled effectively. Investment of such resources in the highlighted areas is necessary,
however huge they may appear at the on-set, because of the eventual far reaching benefits that will
accrue. Also, incentives lie in the fact that the returns on investment are highly likely to be positive as
revealed by the Avanti Approach (DTI, 2007). While the benefits from integration of AEC related
programmes/courses in the tertiary institutions may be realized on a long-term basis, findings from
research works and software improvements can have relatively more immediate impact with sufficient
support from Government and the AEC family. Thus, IT-based collaboration stands as a good tool to
neutralize the effects of fragmentation and the draw-backs the industry have been experiencing, hence
actions in this direction are important and timely at this stage of development of the AEC industry.
5
Conclusion
Many issues have been raised on the implications of collaboration in the AEC industry but answers
can be provided if they are given due attention. These issues need to be sorted because desired
development in IT tools – BIM, VRP, Internet application are all hinged on collaboration. Architects,
structural engineers, service engineers and quantity surveyors are the professionals that may directly
be at the centre-stage of exploiting collaboration to their advantage right from the conceptual design
stage of a project. However, this will require choosing the right IT tools that will enhance
collaborative working which depends on a number of factors. These factors may include proficiency
of the various parties with the IT tools or the degree of interoperability across various professional
platforms. The situation may be a little lighter when a single firm has all the various required
professional platforms for a project and appropriate interoperable IT tools are available for use.
This paper has outlined educational framework, integration of IT tools, implementation of pilot
projects and collaborative research as some of the areas that require attention to foster collaboration
and also discussed the associated incentives on these issues. In all, well targeted policies; enabling
laws; guidelines defining professional roles and limits; proprietary rights and patents need to be
defined and enacted in the AEC industry for further progress. Finally, the major stakeholders –
Government, giant AEC firms, professional bodies, the academia, and major clients need to intensify
their commitment to the course of collaboration.
References
AMOR, R. and FARAJ, I., 2000. Misconceptions of IPBD, BRE, UK
ASHCRAFT, H.W., 2008. Building information modelling: a framework for collaboration. Construction Lawyer, Volume
28, Number 3
AUTODESK, 2003. Building information modelling practice, Autodesk Building solutions white paper,
www.autodesk.com/building/information. Last accessed: October 2009
BAKIS, N., AOUAD, G. and KAGIOGLOU, 2006. Towards distributed product data sharing environments –progress and
challenges. Automation in Construction 16, pp. 586-595
COLEMAN, G.S. and JUN, J.W., 2005. Interoperabilty and Construction process: a white paper for building owners and
project decision-makers. American Institute of Structural Steel Construction, Inc.
CPIC (CONSTRUCTION PROJECT INFORMATION COMMITTEE), 2008. Building Information Modelling
http://cpic.org.uk/en/current-projects/building-information-modelling.cfm. Last accessed: October 2009
CRC (CYON RESEARCH CORPORATION), 2003. The building information Model: a look at Graphisoft’s Building
information Model, Cyon Research White Paper, www.cyonresearch.com. Last accessed: October 2009
DTI (2007). The construction research programme – project showcase
FINGER, S., GELMAN, D., FAY, A., SZCZERBAN, M. and SMAILAGIC, A., 2006. Supporting collaborative learning in
engineering design. Expert Systems with Applications 31, pp.734-741
GRAPHISOFT, 2003. A strategy for design, construction and management collaboration: sharing information based on
virtual building and the IFC object sharing protocol. Graphisoft R&D
KAM, C., FISCHER, M., HANNINEN, R., KARJALAINEN and LAITENEN, J., 2003. The product model and fourth
dimension project. Information Technology in Construction 8, pp. 137-166
KVAN, T., 2000. Collaborative design: what is it? Automation in Construction 9, pp. 409-415
LEEUNWEN, J. PV. and FRIDQVIST, S., 2006. An information model for collaboration in the construction industry.
Computers in Industry, 57, pp. 809-816
MATTESSICH, P.W. and MONSEY, B.R., 1992. Collaboration: what makes it work, A. H. Wilder Foundation, pp. 53
MURPHY, M., 2009. Building information modelling: no place to hide, www.achrnews.com/copyright/BPN_GUID_9-52006_A_10000000000000586523? Last accessed: October 2009
PLUME, J. and MITCHELL, J., 2005. Collaborative design using IFC building model – Learning from experience.
Automation in Construction 16, pp.28-36
ROLSTONE, S.J., 2001. Collaborative research proposals: a guide. Maritime Centre for Women’ Health and Nova Scotia
Health Research Foundation
SO, H.J., SEAH, L.H. and TOH-HENG, H.L., 2009. Designing collaborative knowledge building environments accessible to
learners: impacts and design challenges, Computer and Education
SOIBELMAN, L., O’BRIAN, W. and ELVIN, G., 2000. Collaborative Design Processes: A class on concurrent
collaboration in multi-disciplinary design
SNOOK, K., 2009. Building Information Modelling: Drawing is Dead – Long Live Modelling. Integrated Project Working in
RIBA Knowledge Community
SUCCAR, B., 2009. Building information modelling framework: A research delivery foundation for industry stakeholders.
Automation in construction 18, pp.357-375
WILKINS, B. and BARRET, J., 2000. The virtual construction site: a web-based teaching/learning environment in
construction technology. Automation in Construction 10, pp. 169-179
WILSON, R.S., GILLIGAN, C. and PEARSON, D., 1992. Strategic Marketing Management. Butterworth-Heinmann Ltd,
Oxford, UK
WOKSEPP, S. and TULLBERG, 2001. Virtual reality in construction: a state of the art report. Applied Virtual Reality in
Construction Engineering, Report 1
WONG A.K.D., WONG, F.K.W. and NADEEM, A., 2009. Comparative roles of major stakeholders for the implementation
of BIM in various countries. Integration and Collaboration III, Changing Roles