Implementation of Level 2 Building Information ...

Implementation of Level 2 Building Information Modelling Strategy for Asset Procurement Corresponding Author: Professor Bimal Kumar School of Engineering and Built Environment Glasgow Caledonian University 70 Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0141 3318522 Mobile: 07803086091

1

Implementation of Level 2 Building Information Modelling Strategy for Asset Procurement B Kumar and G Hayne, School of Engineering and Built Environment Glasgow Caledonian University

Abstract There has been a considerable amount of work done on the applications of Building Information Modelling (BIM) technologies for design and their use in collaboration in construction projects. Despite the availability of these technologies for well over a decade now, their wide scale adoption has been largely limited to the design stage for model authoring. This has meant that the benefits have accrued mostly locally to the design organisations by way of a more efficient design management process for dealing with clash detections and mitigation as well as other ensuing modifications to the design. The ultimate benefits from BIM have so far eluded the wider stakeholders at the project level and ultimately the end clients in any significant way. Only in recent times has there been a realisation within the industry that without proper processes, standards and contractual protocols in place for structured information management for all stakeholders, the BIM technologies, on their own, would never achieve the overall benefits for the end clients throughout the lifecycle of the assets as they potentially could. Level 2 BIM (L2 BIM) is one such approach put forward by the UK’s BIM Task Group which presents the BIM-based asset procurement as a set of processes, standards and contractual protocols for effective information management throughout the lifecycle of an asset. This paper presents the implementation of the much-published L2 BIM approach for a large asset owning organisation. The approach presented here essentially provides guidance on applying the L2 BIM approach by giving a specific set of rules and steps to answer specific needs of a large asset owner by drawing upon the work done by the authors with NHS Scotland. This paper proposes an approach for the application of current knowledge on L2 BIM in a practical scenario with a view to it being replicable by other organisations. The

2

authors believe that despite the significant amount of PAS (Publicly Available Specifications) and BS (British Standards) documents available on L2 BIM, a large part of the industry needs assistance with their use in real life scenarios. From that perspective, this paper fills an important gap for the industry to successfully implement L2 BIM in asset procurement lifecycles. NHS Scotland is currently implementing the approach outlined here in their projects after a thorough validation by the capital project planning and delivery teams across their footprint. A set of challenges that may arise in practice and pointers to how to address them are also outlined. In addition, a stepped approach for transition from level 1 to 2 is also suggested. Keywords: Building Information Modelling, Information Exchange, Design, Collaboration, Construction

1.0

Introduction and Background

BIM has been a major topic of interest for the construction industry around the world in recent years. There are several high-profile examples of BIM-driven project delivery (Dossick and Neff, 2010; Sebastian, 2011; Porwal and Hewage, 2013; Barlish and Sullivan, 2010) that different organisations have claimed to have delivered over the recent past. At the same time, there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding about what exactly a BIM-driven project implies. The clear majority of practitioners appear to take the usage of BIM software in some aspects of the lifecycle of built asset procurement for it to qualify to be a BIM-enabled asset delivery. That seems to be the prevailing wisdom and understanding at the time of writing this paper. Lately, it has been pointed out by several organisations and experts that whilst the ‘lonely’ use of BIM technologies does accrue benefits largely to the organisations using them, it does not necessarily benefit the whole project and the end client organisation. To achieve benefits at the project level and to the end clients over the entire lifecycle of the built asset, Collaborative BIM needs to be implemented with appropriate processes, information exchange standards and contractual protocols in place. Besides, the cost of lack of interoperability between systems which is a key requirement for effective collaboration has been quantified in the USA (Gallaher et al., 2004). This paper proposes an approach for implementing a Collaborative BIM strategy based in the so-called Level 2 BIM framework (PAS 1192: Part 2, 2013) and discusses its implications by reporting

3

on its implementation in a large asset owning organisation. The implications of Collaborative BIM are far-reaching and could potentially alter the relationships between the key stakeholders profoundly (Crotty, 2012; Kumar, 2013 and 2015; Bryde et al., 2013; Fox and Hietanen, 2007). There are also potential implications for the government bodies as well as the society at large. As increased amounts of digital information get captured by utilising a collaborative BIM approach, several hitherto unknown inferences could be drawn about the performance of built assets including their users’ behaviour patterns giving rise to several policy level and strategic decisions about their procurement, operation and maintenance and future capital planning processes. It is, therefore, no surprise that governments around the world (Cheng and Qiqi, 2015) are actively adapting their procurement processes to suit a Collaborative BIM-enabled approach. In the UK1, an entire set of processes and standards for information exchanges, generally referred to as Level 2 BIM have been made mandatory in all publicly procured projects from 2016 (BIS, 2011). This mandate is being facilitated by a whole suite of guidance and standard documents (PAS 1192: Part 2, 2013; CIC, 2013b; CIC, 2013c; PAS 1192: Part 3, 2014; CIC, 2015) that every project must comply with.

2.0 Methodology As explained in sections 4 and 5 later, the methodology adopted in this work was one of iterative workshops with relevant stakeholders with a view to first developing the process maps (section 5.3). There were some four workshops organised each one of which focussed on certain aspects of the existing process map for asset procurement within NHS Scotland and how they could be mapped on a new set of BIM-based processes. Once the process map was in place, several guidance documents and templates were developed covering the different stages of the process map. These documents were also developed and improved through iterative feedbacks and consultations with the key and relevant stakeholders of all the fourteen health boards of NHS Scotland. It can, therefore, be concluded that the research methodology used in this work was qualitative action research. Action research generally “is a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the “actor” in improving and/or refining his or her actions” (Sagor, 2016). Action research is also defined as “active participation by the researcher in the process under study to identify, promote and evaluate problems and solutions” (Fellowes and Liu, 2008). Figure 1 shows a typical action research cycle.

1

In Scotland, a similar mandate came into effect in April 2017

4

Figure 1. A Typical Action Research Cycle (Passfield, 2013) The key steps in the adopted methodology can be summarised as:   

Iterative Focussed Workshops (Group interviews); Validation through focussed workshops and feedback loop; and Generalisation through further feedback through focussed workshops

3.0 Existing Frameworks for BIM Adoption There are several models proposed for BIM adoption and literature is replete with competing ideas. Based on work done by Everett Rogers (2003), Succar and Kassem (2015) have distinguished adoption from diffusion by suggesting that adoption deals with a single organisation whilst diffusion relates to the entire industry, sector or even a whole country. At this point, it is probably instructive to draw upon work done by Moore (2014) who wrote a seminal book aimed primarily at marketing and sales professionals on how a technology transitions from being just a desirable gadget to a popular one capturing increasing share of markets they operate in. He calls this crossing the chasm. Often it is not entirely clear as to what or how a product (or service) crosses the chasm, as it were, but there are several explanations provided. Moore proposes that the early adopters of a product are typically the enthusiasts and the visionaries whereas the majority buyers at a much later stage are the pragmatists. He goes on to explore the quite different expectations of these two categories of adopters and how they can be met with a view to potentially shortening the lead time required to move from a relatively small group of

5

enthusiasts and visionaries to capturing large chunks of the market by convincing and meeting the expectations of the pragmatists.

In the context of any such innovation or major change in the construction industry, one should consider its nature and key characteristics and how it operates. The construction industry is a project (rather than product) based industry and possesses quite unique set of characteristics. Relatively low market share by any single organisation and arguably severe fragmentation in the industry are two such characteristics that arguably raise the industry’s proclivity to poor innovation and profitability records. The most important implication of all this is that there is potentially only one way to affect any major changes (e.g. innovation) in this industry. The only way any such change could be implemented in this industry is if a powerful client body forces it. It is well established that in most countries the Government, being the single largest client group, happens to be the most powerful client of this industry. Frequently, the more progressive governments around the world have, in their own way, been instrumental in achieving most (if not all) innovations in this industry, their main driver being savings and cost cutting and latterly carbon footprint reduction of their built assets. The adoption (or diffusion) of BIM around the world is experiencing a similar drive by the respective governments (some more effective than others). Ironically, all the models of diffusion (Succar and Kassem, 2015), with some very powerful thinking and ideas embedded within them, although have relevance in probably indirect ways than anything else, do not really have much direct relevance when it comes to BIM adoption (or diffusion) as they are singularly and arguably forced upon the industry (for good reasons and intent) as outlined above. It should also be pointed out that there are several other frameworks for BIM implementation proposed but to the best of the authors’ knowledge, none of these proposes a framework addressing the entire lifecycle for BIM-based procurement of assets. For example, Succar (2009) addresses some very important higher level issues for research and delivery foundation for the industry. Others like Love et al. (2014), Coates (2013) and Chen (2015) propose frameworks largely around implementation of technological issues. There are some good examples of BIM-based asset procurement in different parts of the world which address the challenges pertaining to specific types of assets, most notable ones that deserve attention are the ones in Norway in relation to hospital projects (Bakkmoen, 2013) and a high-profile example from Australia in relation to the Sydney Opera House (CRC, 6

2007). However, the Sydney Opera House example is also focussed more around BIM technology applications, albeit a very comprehensive one and is clearly an exemplar of BIM technology applications for FM. As is well known, the Scandinavian countries have been one of the early adopters in applying BIM in projects. One of Norway’s biggest public asset owners, Statsbygg, started to mandate BIM in their projects in 2010 and published its BIM manual in 2013 (Statsbygg, 2013). Therefore, the Norway example for hospitals (Bakkmoen, 2013) should not come as a surprise and is one of the good examples of BIM-based asset procurement in the health sector. Having said that, these are also predominantly technology-focussed, albeit useful exemplars in their sectors. The UK approach is quite different in its focus on strategic use of BIM by having asset lifecycle information management processes and associated standards and contractual protocols in place than perhaps anywhere else. Perhaps the framework suggested by Jung (2011) comes closest to the work presented here. The other relevant framework that should be noted here is the BIM Owner’s Guide (2013) published by Penn State University which concentrates on the integration of BIM within an organisation which subsumes the implementation of BIM in projects. However, the perspective presented here is a more holistic view of a BIM-driven asset procurement process as a digital information management process from the definition of the need for an asset through its design, construction and eventually to its operation and maintenance phases as proposed by the UK BIM Task Group commonly known as Level 2 BIM (PAS 1192: Part 2, 2013). 3.1 What is BIM? BIM has been defined by several people emphasising on the different aspects of its implementation and potential benefits. For example, Eastman et al. (2013) have defined BIM as a modelling technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate and analyse building models. These building models are characterised by building components that are represented with intelligent digital representations that ‘know’ what they are and can be associated with computable graphic and data attributes and parametric rules. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) describe the fundamentals of BIM as ‘... a common single and co-ordinated source of structured information...’ (RICS, 2016). National BIM Standards-United States definition (NBIMS, 2016): "A BIM is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a

7

facility. As such it serves as a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis for decisions during its lifecycle from inception onward." 3.2 Difference between CAD and BIM Technologies There are various viewpoints put forward to differentiate between CAD and BIM at the technology level. A slightly alterative viewpoint is presented here. BIM includes:  Geometry;  Topology; and  Semantics. CAD also contains geometry (location of points in space) and topology (connectivity between points). However, what distinguishes BIM from CAD is the inclusion of semantics or meaning in the CAD. BIM changes the emphasis by making the MODEL the primary tool for communication. This model can be used to derive various information about the building relating to design, construction and other aspects. 3.3 Level 2 BIM Information Management Lifecycle Level 2 BIM is the second out of four levels of BIM maturity that Bew and Richards (2008) proposed as shown later in figure 11. Section 5.6 elaborates on the four maturity levels further. However, to put things in perspective, this section briefly describes the information delivery lifecycle shown in figure 2 as this is the core workflow proposed for Level 2 BIM.

8

Figure 2. Information delivery life cycle (PAS 1192:Part 2, 1993).

Commencing at the point of assessment (for existing assets) or statement of need (for new assets) and progressively working through the various stages of the information delivery cycle, the requirements within this PAS culminate with the delivery of the asconstructed AIM. This is handed over to the employer by the supplier once the PIM has been verified against what has been constructed.

4.0 Elements of a Level 2 BIM-based Asset Procurement Strategy In line with the L2 BIM approach, it is suggested here that any such strategy is intended to ensure the creation of a digitised information management process which all stakeholders and people working on projects should follow to maintain consistency and facilitate collaborative working, which will, in turn, reduce waste and nonconformances. To that end, any such strategy should encapsulate the overall BIM process as indicated in the schematic below in figure 3:

9

Specify (Information Requirements)

Assure (Assessment/validation)

Ensure (Contractuals, BIM PEP)

Figure 3. The schematic overall Level 2BIM-based Asset Procurement Process This section describes the different elements of the BIM-based asset procurement strategy. Essentially, there are five key elements of the strategy. These are:     

BIM-based Process Map Development Information requirements Specifications BIM Project Executions Plan Development BIM Contractual and protocols including Appointments of BIM-related roles and as specified in a Scope of Services document BIM Infrastructure Plan including model/information sharing mechanism utilising standard classification systems and schemas

First and foremost, a process map needs to be developed which aligns with a typical information delivery lifecycle (PAS1192: Part2: 2013). As mentioned earlier in section 2 on research methodology, this is accomplished through a series of iterative focussed workshops and feedback loops which takes the existing asset procurement process and maps its keys stages with the corresponding stages of a BIM-based version of the process. Once this is in place, associated guidance documents and templates need to be developed aligned with the BIM-based process map for specifying the information requirements and ensuring and assuring their delivery by the project team.

4.1 Process Mapping To summarise the whole process of implementing a BIM-enabled asset life cycle, this section presents a high-level workflow that brings together all the ideas discussed earlier in this paper. Figure 4 shows a high-level view of the workflow that should be typically followed for any BIM-enabled project. The process starts with the definition of 10

a need for either a new asset or refurbishment or enhancement of an existing asset. In the case of a new asset, the process starts off with a clean sheet with a set of requirements that the asset owner (the employer) might have. This is what would be compiled together in an IR (information requirements) document, typically called EIR (Employer’s Information Requirements) in the UK. Based on the IRs, a project procurement process may be initiated, which will be driven by the IR document in terms of which procurement route to adopt as well as informing and being part of the tender documents. The tenders could well be single or multistage ones, but such details are omitted here because the focus is to outline the overall workflow. The tenders received will be based on the IRs and any protocols that the project may follow. At this stage, the information may well be at a higher level but will include BEP (BIM Execution Plan) documents including the tenderers’ proposed approach as well as their capability and competence in relation to BIM. This will then be followed by the awards of the contract after various negotiations and clarifications. At this stage, a more comprehensive BEP document will be prepared, agreed and signed off by all stakeholders of the project. In addition to the BEP document, an IDP (Information Delivery Plan) will be prepared. At this stage, the PIM (Project Information Model) starts taking shape, consisting of essentially graphical (building information models), non-graphical and other documents that will include populated templates from the BEP and other documents as stipulated in the IR document. At the end of the construction phase, the completed PIM essentially becomes the AIM (Asset Information Model), which is handed over to the asset management and facilities management group. In the case of a refurbishment or enhancement project for an existing asset, the AIM already in place for the asset in question becomes the starting point when specifying the need for the project, and which is then followed by the same steps mentioned above for a new build project. At the start of the process for developing a BIM Implementation strategy, this BIM workflow, must be mapped onto the existing project/asset procurement process in the organisation. This is typically done through a number of feedback workshops where the practitioners of the existing processes will brainstorm each of its stage and work out the appropriate BIM workflow stages that they naturally map onto. An example of such a process mapping exercise is discussed in section 5.3 for developing the BIM process map for NHS Scotland.

11

Asset Need

PQQ/Tender Docs.

Information Requirements Specifications

Pre-contract BIM PEP

Scope of Services

Post-contract BIM PEP

Contractuals

Contract Awards

Information Delivery Plan

BIM Process Workflow

Project Information Model

Asset Information Model

Figure 4. The BIM-based Asset Delivery Workflow

4.2 Information Requirements Specification As mentioned earlier, once the process map has been developed, the first document that needs to be developed is the information requirements templates that will mainly answer the following question, 

What information does the client organisation need to operate and maintain the asset after handover? 12

 

What standard formats and schemas must the supplied information comply with? What levels of detail should the supplied information adhere to?

This question implies that the asset and facilities management teams need to contribute in a significant way to this stage when the information requirements are being specified. These requirements will be driven, to a large extent, by the input requirements for the CAFM (Computer-aided Facilities Management) and EAMS (Electronic Asset Management System) currently in use by the client (asset owner/employer) organisation. To facilitate and streamline the process of specifying the requirements, a standard template can be developed which can be adapted for specific projects based on the specific requirements of the asset in question. In the UK, this template (or document once it is fully developed for a particular project) is called the EIR (Employer’s Information Requirements). It must be stressed that the importance of EIR document cannot be over-emphasised as everything else hangs off this document.

4.3 BIM Protocols/Contracts The primary objective of the protocol is to enable the production of the models at defined stages of a project. The protocol should incorporate provisions which support the production of deliverables for ‘data drops’ at defined project stages. The protocol also should provide for the appointment of an ‘Information Manager’. A further objective of the protocol is that its use will support the adoption of effective collaborative working practices in Project Teams. Finally, it should deal with the intellectual property rights (IPR) in relation to the production, ownership and usage of the models by different stakeholders in a project. Different countries have their own approach to dealing with these issues. In the UK, as far as level 2 BIM is concerned, the ownership of the models lies with whoever produces it but the other stakeholders essentially get a license to use the models in relation to any project-related activities.

4.4 BIM Project Execution Plans Similar to a typical Project execution Plan (PEP) in a traditional project delivery process, every BIM-enabled project should have a BIM PEP document agreed and signed off by all stakeholders, right at the start of the project. Contractually, this document becomes an addendum to the contract documents in the UK. Therefore, every stakeholder of a project is contractually bound to comply with this document. There are several reasons why a document such as a BIM PEP is essential to ensure that all stakeholders in a project deliver what is expected of them. Introducing BIM in a project usually means bringing in new processes, particularly in terms of information management. In order to successfully manage information in a project, everyone involved in the project needs to sign up to processes and standards in advance of execution of 13

the project. There are several examples of templates for BIM PEPs available in different parts of the world but the first such document was published by the Computer Integrated Construction (CIC) group of the Penn State University (BIM PEP, 2010). This can only be achieved by careful advance planning and documenting all processes mapped on to the responsible parties alongside the different stages of the project. Therefore, whenever there is a lack of clarity, dispute or confusion about any aspect of delivery of information throughout the life cycle of the project, the BIM PEP is the document that the project team should refer to for resolution. It is, therefore, not hard to imagine the crucial and important role that this document can play in successful project delivery. Although the BIM PEP is supposed to be provided by the supply chain in response to the IRs addressing the question, “How they will deliver the information specified in the IRs?”, it is recommended that in the interest of consistency of formats, the client/employer organisation should have its own BIM PEP template which the supply chain should fill in as required. The IRs (or more commonly known as the EIR document in the UK) are prepared by the client team and the BIM PEP is the supply chain’s response to this confirming exactly how they will deliver the IRs throughout the project stages. According to the current approach put forward by the UK’s BIM Task Group, the EIR document does not normally form part of the contracts but the BIM PEP does alongside the BIM Protocols. However, the EIR document will always form part of the tender documents. To keep things simple and pragmatic, the BIM PEP document is supposed to be only added to the existing contracts just so whichever contract that may be used on a project (e.g. NEC or JCT etc.) does not directly get impacted in case of a Level 2 BIM project implementation.

4.5 BIM Infrastructure Plan and link with CAFM and EAM Systems As mentioned in the earlier sections, once all the initial set up of the project is finished by having the IRs, contracts relating to BIM protocols for ownerships of models and BIM PEP in place, a mobilisation plan needs to be developed which ensures that the technology and other infrastructure to implement the project is in place. The one single most important aspect of this plan is to ensure that the required hardware and software infrastructure for a structured and managed exchange of information between all stakeholders is available and operational. In this context, it is relevant to point out the role of a Common Data Environment, CDE (shown in figure 12) which acts as a central repository for all information exchanged and facilitates a managed process for achieving a seamless and yet disciplined exchange of information. A CDE should not be confused with a Project Extranet (PE) as it is more than just a passive repository. Perhaps one way of describing a CDE is that it is a managed PE and includes a number of gateways to assess the veracity and quality of data to be shared with others and eventually passed on to be archived. A more detailed description of CDE is outside the scope of this paper and can be found in CIC (2013b). Another important part of the technical infrastructure 14

should include the use of standards for capturing, storing and exchanging information through the use standard schemas like, but not necessarily, COBie (Construction Operations and Building information exchange) which is a part of IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) schemas and a standard classification system like Uniclass (Uniclass, 2015) or OmniClass (OmniClass, 2016). Arguably, the ultimate goal of Level 2 BIM is to achieve a seamless delivery of asset information model at handover. This can only be achieved if the EIR document specifies clearly the requirements of the Computer-aided Facility management (CAFM) and electronic asset management (EAM) system in terms of the data as well as in their formats that these systems will accept. This requires standard naming and classification systems to be used which comply with those of the CAFM and EAM ssytems. IFC-compliant systems with COBie plug-ins are increasingly being used for the data exchange purposes in the construction industry. A detailed description of IFC or COBie is outside the scope of this paper. However, a further elaboration of this data transfer process in the context of NHS Scotland will be provided in section 5.6. In summary, once the information requirements have been specified, the asset owner’s team is satisfied about the delivery of these requirements as detailed in the BIM PEP, and the contracts are in place binding all stakeholders to these and the infrastructure is in place, essentially all the key ingredients are in place for a L2 BIM-driven procurement of assets.

5.0 An Example Application of the L2 BIM Strategy – NHS Scotland In response to the UK government’s mandate for BIM-driven project delivery from 2016, National Health Service of Scotland, decided to develop a BIM strategy for procurement of all its assets. NHS Scotland is one of the largest asset owners in the UK with more than 2,500 assets under operation and management. These assets are predominantly healthcare facilities some of which are highly complex in terms of their size and functionalities. Their last major capital project was the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Glasgow with 1677 beds and an estimated value of circa. £850 million and is Scotland's largest ever publicly funded NHS construction project. A major project was undertaken by NHS Scotland led by the main author of this paper to develop their BIM strategy alongside guidance documents and templates required for implementing Level 2 BIM in all their projects in future. The main outputs were their existing procurement processes mapped on to BIM processes with specific data drops at key stages, an overall BIM strategy and guidance, EIR templates and a tailored BIM protocol to be added to contracts. The following sections provide an outline of these key outputs of the project 15

which essentially serve as an example implementation of the framework outlined earlier in the paper.

5.1 NHS Scotland Procurement Routes Frameworks 2

Frameworks Scotland 2 is a strategic partnering approach to the procurement of capital schemes across NHS Scotland. It is a framework for the whole of Scotland based on a single point deliverer (Principal Supply Chain Partner or PSCP) model offering a one stop shop for the delivery of design and construction on projects via an integrated supply chain. Frameworks Scotland 2 is the successor to and builds on the success of Frameworks Scotland (SCIM, 2015). NPD

The Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) programme was developed as an alternative to, and has since superseded the traditional Private Finance Initiative (PFI) model in Scotland and is being used to fund projects in three main sectors – Further Education, Health and Transport.

5.2 RIBA Plan of Works 2013 In 2013, the Royal Institution of British Architects (RIBA) published a newly modified Plan of Work (PoW). This was arguably in response to the ascendancy of BIM-based asset delivery in the UK and elsewhere in the world. The RIBA PoW (RIBA PoW, 2013)has been by far the most popular process map used by the construction industry in the UK and several other countries. The PoW organises the entire process of concept, briefing, design, construction and operation and maintenance into a number of discrete stages. The 2013 PoW stresses the predominance of the whole project team and the importance of the entire team’s early involvement in the whole process.

5.3 NHS Scotland BIM-based Process Mapping As mentioned before, the first step in the development of the BIM strategy is the mapping of the existing procurement processes to a BIM-based one. In line with the principles of action research as outlined in section 2, several discussions were held with members of the NHS Scotland staff with a view to understanding their processes and then planning a number of workshops with staff from all boards for observations and 16

information gathering on implementation and limitations of the existing process maps in use. These meetings helped crystallise ideas about how lifecycle information management loopholes within the existing processes. The next step was to organise a number of focussed workshops with representatives from the design, capital planning, projects and strategy groups of all the fourteen health boards in Scotland with a view to getting their views on these issues and how could different stages of the existing processes incorporate data drops in very specific terms. An initial draft set of process maps was then circulated and feedbacks sought from all the boards. This mapping process was carried out over several months with a feedback loop over several iterations as indicated in figure 1. After several iterations, the final BIM-based process map was arrived at as shown below in figure 6. Figure 5 shows the existing process stages which includes the RIBA 2013 work stages and the SCIM stages that NHS Scotland use on traditional projects. This BIM Process map shown in figure 6 now forms a part of the SCIM (Scottish Capital Investment Manual) framework and processes to be implemented in all projects. As can be seen clearly in figure 6, the whole emphasis is on delivering the information and data at every stage of the process in very specific terms. The idea being that by the handover stage, the information required by the FM team can be handed over in the right formats to be fed into CAFM system seamlessly.

17

Figure 5. Existing Process Maps in use within NHS Scotland

18

Figure 6: NHS Scotland BIM Processes Mapped on to Existing Processes

19

Figure 7: A snapshot of some of the NHS Scotland BIM Process Data Drops

5.4 NHS Scotland BIM Strategy Suite of Guidance Documents This section provides an overview of the main elements of the NHS Scotland’s BIM strategy which is based on the approach presented earlier in section 4. As a result of the work presented here, SCIM processes have been revised to incorporate the BIM processes outlined in this paper along with the data drops shown in figures 6 and 7. There were mainly three guidance documents produced for NHS Scotland in addition to the revised process maps and data drops mentioned above. The following sub-sections provide an overview of these documents.

5.4.1 NHS Scotland BIM Strategy and Guidance The strategy is intended to ensure the creation of a digitised information management process which all Boards and people working on NHS Scotland programmes should follow to maintain consistency and facilitate collaborative working, which will, in turn, reduce waste and nonconformances. The key drivers for the adoption of BIM in NHS Scotland are: 

To ensure that data is bought only once and that these needs are clearly and consistently defined in the contract documents as early as possible



Availability of validated useful information to improve the efficiency of NHS Scotland’s Boards and its delivery organisations such as PSCPs (or Main Contractors)



Better user engagement – clear, easier understanding through data rich environment



Elimination of waste from the design, construction and commissioning process

20



Use 3D models to inform and optimise the clinical planning process.



Improve clinical excellence through well informed decision making



Encourage collaborative working including early engagement of FM and Operations



Visualisation & Lifecycle solution testing at preconstruction stage



Accurate and complete data improving quality of bids, reducing risk allowances in target prices and lump sum bids



3D model input into the assessment of the impact changes at all stages in a project lifecycle



Input of a populated asset data set into Computer Assisted Facilities Management (CAFM) systems – saving time and avoid duplication

The Strategy document provides an outline of the overall BIM strategy that has been established through a series of collaborative workshops with NHS Scotland stakeholders to create a suite of strategy documents, guides and templates.

5.4.2 NHS Scotland EIR Templates The NHS Scotland Employers Information Requirements (EIR) template was developed and should form part of the appointment and tender documents on a NHS Scotland BIM Project. These EIR’s define which models need to be produced at each project stage – together with the required level of detail and definition. The models are key deliverables in the ‘data drops’ – contributing to effective decision making by the Boards at key stages of the project. As pointed out in PAS 1192: Part 3, EIRs are made up OIRs (Organisation Information Requirements) and AIRs (Asset Information Requirements). OIRs relate to those information requirements that deal with high level issues like regulatory matters, for example. AIRs relate to the specific information about assets that are essential for their operation and maintenance. This set of IRs are driven by the FM function and should form a key part of the EIR document as this is what is ultimately going to drive the information at handover to be seamlessly into the CAFM and EAM systems. Arguably, this is one of the key aims of the L2 BIM process. As the BIM protocol requires details of Building Information Models and information management processes, the EIRs provide an effective platform to communicate these requirements as part of an appointment process. There are templates provided for each data drop point and these have been developed after comprehensive discussions with asset and facilities management staff within the different boards of NHS Scotland. One key challenge faced was that the health boards do not use a standard CAFM system and therefore the input requirements for the different systems in use were quite different. So, the templates were developed keeping in mind the different assets in use in different boards and are largely software agnostic. In any case, these templates are only meant to provide a starting point in the development of actual EIR’s for a particular project and will needs to be adapted for specific requirements of a particular project. A part of the EIR template for data drop 3 is shown in the figure 8. Part of another key data drop 5 at the handover stage is shown in figure 9 and part of AIR is shown in figure 10. It should be pointed out that the EIR templates include AIR (Asset Information Requirements) which encapsulate the

21

key requirements for data and information transfer at handover for seamless transfer to CAFM and EAM systems. NHS Scotland Drop 3 Information to be delivered prior to the end of RIBA Plan of Work Stage C (to be edited in concert with individual project requirements)

(RIBA POW13 – Stage 2)

COBie UK

Digital Documentation

Level of definition









2









2









2









2









2

2D PDF Drawings

2D DWG Drawings

Description

Model

NHS Scotland Drop 3

Overall form and content Space planning

Site and context

External form and appearance Building and site sections

Internal layouts

Confirmed zoning. Confirmed scale of spaces and of the building as a whole that the PSCP (OR MAIN CONTACTOR) Proposes. Confirmed adjacencies and circulation pattern Relationship to adjacent buildings and external uses/circulation. Proposed levels. Proposed approach Relationship to adjacent buildings and external uses/circulation. Proposed levels Proposals for internal layout of key spaces

Figure 8: A section of NHS Scotland Employer’s information requirements Template

22

NHS Scotland Drop 5 Information to be delivered prior to the end of RIBA Plan of Work Stage K (to be edited in concert with individual project requirements)

(RIBA POW13 – Stage 5) The Board’s requirements for information submitted by the PSCP (OR MAIN CONTACTOR) as part of its Operating and Maintenance Information shall constitute Data Drop 5. If demolitions or removal of existing equipment are necessary as an enabler for the contract, then a separate data drop 5 shall be provided at the end of such demolitions or removals to allow updating of the Board’s CAFM system. If enabling works or sectional completions are to be employed then a Data Drop 5 will be provided at the completion of each section. Level of definition

Design strategies Fire

Digital Documentation

Internal layouts

COBie UK

External form and appearance Building and site sections

2D DWG Drawings

Site and context

2D PDF Drawings

Overall form and content Space planning

Description

Model

NHS Scotland Drop 5 Handover + Closeout: O&M Information

Confirmed zoning. Confirmed scale of spaces and of the building as a whole as constructed. Confirmed adjacencies and circulation pattern Relationship to adjacent buildings and external uses/circulation. Constructed levels. Confirmed construction











6











6











6

Relationship to adjacent buildings and external uses/circulation as constructed. Levels as constructed. Internal layout of all spaces as constructed











6





 



6

Confirmed fire strategy that is adopted for this building.





 



6

Figure 9: A section of NHS Scotland Employer’s information requirements Template

23

NHS asset template sheet Code Series

Category of Items

AA

ALARM SYSTEMS

AB

ANAESTHETIC RESUSCITATION

AC

ANTI-STATIC ITEMS

BB

HEAT SOURCE

BC

BLINDS & CURTAINS

BUIGEN

BUILDING GENERAL

CA

CLOCKS

CB

COLD WATER SUPPLY

CC

Includes E.G.

Mapped 3I code Facet

INTRUDER, ATTACK FIRE, SMOKE, MED GAS ETC RESUSCITATION TROLLEY, VENTILATOR, MOBILE DENTAL ETC CLOTHING, EQUIPMENT ETC BOILERS & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

Element

2

19

2

11

Sub element

1

2

14

CALL SYSTEMS

TANKS, VALVES, PIPES ETC BED UNITS

2

18

CD

CONVEYORS/ELEVATORS/ROLLERS

FOOD CONVEYOR ETC

2

15

CE

CEILINGS

2

4

DA

DOMESTIC EQUIPMENT

DB

DRAINAGE – EXTERNAL

SUSPENDED, PLASTER, TILES ETC VACUUM, FLOOR SCRUBBER, POLISHER ETC. DRAINS, MANHOLES, GUTTERS ETC

2

7

DC

DRAINAGE – INTERNAL

4

3

Figure 10: A section of NHS Scotland Employer’s information requirements Asset Template Sheet (forming a key component of AIRs)

5.4.3 NHS Scotland BIM Protocol This NHS Scotland BIM Protocol has been produced regarding the CIC Building Information Model (BIM) Protocol 2013 (CIC, 2013c). The Protocol has been drafted for use on all common construction contracts and supports BIM working at Level 2. The Protocol identifies the Building Information Models that are required to be produced by members of the Project Team and puts into place specific obligations, liabilities and associated limitations on the use of the models. The Protocol can also be used Health Boards to require the adoption of particular ways of working within the overall Level 2 BIM approach – such as the adoption of a common naming convention. 5.4.3.1 General principles adopted in the drafting of the BIM Protocol The following principles have informed the drafting of the NHS Scotland BIM Protocol:   

The Protocol makes the minimum changes necessary to the pre-existing contractual arrangements on construction projects; The Protocol ensures that there is an obligation on parties to provide defined elements of their works/services using models; The Protocol is a contractual document which takes precedence over existing agreements; and; 24



The Protocol is flexible and should be suitable for use on all Level 2 BIM projects.

Objectives and Key Provisions of the BIM Protocol The primary objective of the Protocol is to enable the production of Building Information Models at defined stages of a project. The Protocol is aligned with Government BIM Strategy, and incorporates provisions which support the production of deliverables for ‘data drops’ at defined project stages such as those noted in the NHS Scotland BIM Process Map discussed earlier. The Protocol also provides for the appointment of an ‘Information Manager’. A further objective of the Protocol is that its use will support the adoption of effective collaborative working practices in project teams. The encouragement of the adoption of common standards or working methods under PAS 1192 Part 2 which includes examples of best practice that can be made an explicit contractual requirement under the Protocol. Such practices will be for the Health Boards to specify. All parties involved in the use, production or delivery of Models on the Project (the “Project Team Members”) are required to have a BIM Protocol appended to their contracts. This will ensure that all parties producing and delivering Models adopt any common standards or ways of working described in the Protocol and that all parties using the Models have a clear right to do so. The responsibility for ensuring that Protocols are in place is with Health Board named in each agreement. The Protocol requires the concerned Board to appoint a party to undertake the Information Management Role. This is expected to form part of a wider set of duties under an existing appointment and is likely to be performed either by the design Lead or the project Lead, which could be a consultant or the main contractor at different stages of the project. In some circumstances, the BIM protocol allows the Board to appoint a standalone Information Manager. A key area of concern for many information providers is that the wider use of data-rich BIM will make it harder to protect IPR. The Protocol reflects that the Intellectual Property provisions as set out in the existing agreement for the project in question will apply to the use of the Model. The Protocol is intended to be expressly incorporated into all direct contracts between the Health Board and the project team members.

5.5 Lessons Learnt and Perceived Challenges This section outlines some of the challenges that were faced in developing the L2 BIM strategy for NHS Scotland. These challenges may be typical of any similar large organisation and should serve as a useful checklist of issues to be tackled to enable the development and implementation of such a BIM strategy. Nature of organisation NHS Scotland is a large organisation with over two thousand assets under ownership and management. The overall organisation is broken down into fourteen health boards (excluding specialist boards). Each board essentially is separately responsible for the execution and implementation of any centralised strategies, like this BIM strategy described in this paper. So, NHS Scotland has a devolved structure with the responsibilities completely devolved for most functions. NHS Scotland has a central group called the Heath Facilities Scotland (HFS) which is 25

charged with developing centralised strategies for most operational as well as other strategic issues. Therefore, although there are asset procurement processes like SCIM developed centrally for the whole of Scotland by HFS, the executive responsibility for implementing them rests with the individual boards. This proved to be the most important hurdle in developing any agreed view on most aspects of the BIM strategy. A major challenge faced during the development of the BIM strategy was developing a consensus view across the boards on BIM processes, supply chain capability, protocols and adoption of standard classification system and other technical issues for digital information management. The workshops mentioned in section 4 made every attempt to bring together key personnel from all the boards and the discussions were usually long and protracted generally revolving around the quite different ways of working and operational management between the different boards. The organisational structure of NHS Scotland is certainly not unique and it is suggested here that the challenges faced in the development of BIM strategy for NHS Scotland may well be common to many other organisations. From that perspective, the suggested methodology in this paper for the development of a L2 BIM strategy may be a useful tool for many other similar organisations. Interestingly, the central procurement route applies to all boards and yet the way projects are executed in terms of how the same contractors etc. have to deliver an asset may well be quite different. This also presents another set of challenges for the main contractors (known as PSCPs, principal Supply Chain partners in NHS Scotland) as well as their supply chains. Nature of technology infrastructure Due to the devolved nature of NHS Scotland, the technology infrastructure across the boards is also quite different in some quite critical ways from a BIM perspective. Apparently, there have been attempts to streamline technical standards across the health boards but due to various operational issues, these were never implemented fully. The challenges related to technology infrastructure are both internal as well as in terms of interface with the supply chains. In theory, although the BIM strategy is supposed to streamline information exchange standards within and across the boards, the different and non-interoperable software used by the different boards makes this task extremely difficult. Through the workshops, an attempt was made to develop a consensus on these issues and at least develop a minimum common standard classification for entities which were common across the boards. As alluded to in section 5.4.2, the EIR templates were developed based on this premise with the objective of persuading all health boards to use these templates as a starting point in the development of the EIRs for specific projects in the respective boards. It was concluded and agreed that this was probably the most workable and effective solution for NHS Scotland and should be a useful approach to take for other organisations with similar issues. An attempt at streamlining the use of interoperable systems, in particular CAFM and EAM (Computer –aided FM and Electronic Asset management) systems is a major requirement for the successful implementation of any BIM strategy. As a result of the guidance provided by the new BIM strategy, some health boards are already making great strides in this direction. The important lesson here is that the presence of a coherent BIM strategy appears to be providing a new push for streamlining the technical operations of the boards. It is probably quite instructive for other similar organisations that having a BIM strategy with the individual ingredients/constituents outlined in section 4 is a prerequisite for implementing L2 BIM rather than just having the technologies in place without a strategy. This might sound an obvious point to make but in the authors’ experiences with 26

several of these organisations and BIM projects, this appears to be a point easily overlooked by most people in the industry. Existing skills and Upskilling Plan Generally speaking, vast majority of organisations within the industry’s supply chain appears to have a good general awareness of BIM. L2 BIM has benefited from several years of high levels of exposure in the construction industry media and it is therefore consistent that most companies have a strong awareness. However, despite the relative high levels of awareness in the industry, there appears to be a lack of deeper understanding and capabilities in most areas of BIM (Hayne and Kumar, 2017). NHS Scotland’s health boards appear to be no different and therefore a comprehensive upskilling plan needs to be put in place which includes practical ideas about how to implement the various processes and standards now in place. This paper should fill in some of these gaps by way of providing some of the practical guidance for implementing L2 BIM. HFS organised a number of training courses around the BIM strategy which the authors helped deliver throughout Scotland. The lack of deeper understanding of key processes was evident across all boards with some boards being more progress and receptive to ideas than others. Therefore, it is suggested that an upskilling plan based on training needs analysis as well as a change management plan needs to be put in place for successful implementation of L2 BIM. Personnel-related Issues A key indication from some BIM adoption audits (Hayne and Kumar, 2017) carried out recently is that the senior leadership team may not be proactive in many organisations in their approach towards BIM adoption. If such perceptions are noted by the junior staff in the organisation, there is a strong possibility that any implementation strategy will not be given the focus of attention required to achieve success. In case of NHS Scotland, to their huge credit senior management within HFS proactively decided to go down the route of developing a tailored L2 BIM strategy and were among the first large public sector bodies to do so in the UK. However, due to the devolved responsibilities of strategy development and their implementation, the buyin from senior management of individual boards may be a different story. It would appear that not just the buy-in from senior management but even middle to junior level personnel is quite variable from one board to another. In order to address this issue, a comprehensive training programme in the developed L2 BIM strategy was undertaken by the authors throughout all the boards. At the time of writing the paper, an informal assessment of the engagement with the L2 BIM strategy points to encouraging progress being made. A detailed discussion on this is outside the scope of this paper. Procurement route-related issues NHS Scotland has a robust procurement strategy and a comprehensive assessment and vetting process in place for selection of their PSCPs (Principal Supply Chain Partners). The procurement strategy and selection of PSCPs is carried out centrally which is then adopted and implemented by the individual health boards. A central procurement route to be adopted by all the devolved parts of an organisation is definitely a good idea provided the implementation methodologies are also streamlined across the entire organisation. The NHS Scotland experience suggests that the project execution appears to be quite different in different health boards and this may present several challenges in project delivery across different boards.

27

5.6 An Approach to Addressing the perceived Challenges in implementing L2 BIM Based on the lessons learnt and challenges uncovered during the development of the L2 BIM strategy for NHS Scotland, it is suggested that organisations should adopt a stepped approach to implementing L2 BIM in projects. One such approach is being proposed in this section. However, to put things in perspective first a brief discussion on the four maturity levels of BIM will be provided. In the recent past, there has been a lot of discussion around the maturity levels of BIM technology in relation to implementation of BIM-enabled asset procurement, particularly in the UK. This section provides an outline of these maturity levels and presents a pragmatic approach to their implementation in projects based on the approach presented in section 4.

Figure 11. The “Wedge” Diagram showing BIM Technology Maturity Levels The famous “wedge diagram” (Bew and Richards, 2008) above has been widely cited to articulate the progression of different level of technology maturities with increased levels of seamless working and effective data and process management. It should be noted that the original figure has been modified slightly with the addition of several coloured lines denoting sub-stages, which will be explained later. The progression, as originally proposed by Bew and Richards (2008), essentially signifies the progress in technologies over the years and the associated levels of sophistication with each 28

maturity level. As is clear, the progression starts from unmanaged CAD to essentially managed CAD and then onto BIM at level 2 and finally to Level 3. Level 2 and Level 3 BIM essentially differ in terms of the degree of integration between different models where L2 BIM is not fully integrated and is a federated model as shown in figure 12 whereas L3 signifies the fully integrated, shared model. This model of technology maturity levels appears to suggest a discrete move from one level to the next. Whilst this is very useful in understanding the progression of technologies, when one considers the way the adoption of these technologies actually could happen in practice, the progression often is gradual indicating several sub-levels of maturity in addition to the four discrete ones proposed, i.e. Level 1.1, level 1.2 …ultimately Level 2. This is an important and profound issue and should be treated as one because there is generally a tendency within the industry to aim to move in discrete steps as implied by this diagram often resulting in confusion and ultimately disillusion. This is an important issue as the UK government, back in 2011, mandated the transition to Level 2 BIM from 2016. Based on the experiences with several projects within Scotland, it is suggested here that organisations should make the transition in phases perhaps moving from level 1 to 2 in several smaller steps. In practice, this could be implemented in several ways. For example, to begin with only some of the key design functions may embrace BIM for modelling activities, signifying essentially a lonely BIM approach. Once a certain level of maturity is attained with these functions, the other functions may be brought on-stream gradually. Similar approaches have been utilised in other case studies that have been undertaken by the authors in other organisations (SFT, 2016). One of the main lessons that can be drawn from these case studies points to an unsure and doubtful industry that is finding it hard to make the discrete transition from whatever level they may be working at to level 2 in one major step. There are several good examples of the gradual transition over a number of smaller discrete steps dotted around the industry in different parts of the world. As shown in figure 12, a mix of CAD and BIM could co-exist in a project indicating a sub-level of 1.1 to 1.3 suggested above and explained in table 1.

29

BIM Model 1

CAD Model 4

CAD Model 2

CDE BIM Model 3

Figure 12. A Schematic indicating a Mixed Model consisting of Level1 and Level2 co-existing Table 1 is a proposed set of steps to illustrate how a gradual progression from Level 1 to level 2 could be implemented. Arguably, one may add (or delete) some items from the second column corresponding to different sub-levels but that still leaves this idea of gradual, stepped transition intact rather than making that ‘jump’ in one single step which is increasingly being attempted in practice in several instances.

30

Table 1: A matrix of sub-levels between Level 1 and 2 BIM Maturity Sub-Level Level 1.1

Components 1. Mixed CAD and BIM models coexisting in a federated architecture through a CDE 2. Rudimentary IRs 3. Rudimentary BIM PEPs 4. Separate CAD 2D Detailed Designs 5. Standard Classification System

Level 1.2

1. Mixed CAD and BIM models coexisting in a federated architecture through a CDE 2. Structured IRs 3. Comprehensive BIM PEPs 4. LoD and LoI inclusive Info Delivery Plan 5. Separate CAD 2D Detailed Designs 6. Standard Classification System 7. Any standard schema for handover information. Does not have to be COBie 1. All BIM models federated structure through a CDE 2. CAD-based 2D Detailed Designs 3. Structured IRs 4. Comprehensive BIM PEPs 5. LoD and LoI inclusive Info Delivery Plan 6. Standard Classification System 7. BIM Protocols in place 8. Potentially COBie outputs All components of Level 2 BIM

Level 1.3

Level 1.4

CAFM and EAM Integration NHS Scotland’s health boards use several different CAFM systems. Therefore, until the systems are streamlined across all boards, it was decided to carry out a pilot project in one of the boards to demonstrate the seamless integration of CAFM and EAM systems with building information models and develop guidelines for other boards. The selected board use the 3i asset management systems and Archibus CAFM system. They also have strong in-house capabilities in AutoCAD and Revit. The pilot exercise was being carried out retrospectively for a new hospital building which had recently been handed over to the board. So, at the outset there was an acceptance by all involved in the exercise that the designers had developed their models in an unmanaged and uncoordinated environment and that they had generally been created for 2D drawing production. Therefore, certain activities (like standard naming convention) that would have been taken for granted in a properly structured collaborative BIM project, had to be first done before the actual data exchange could be 31

tested. That said, the exercise also demonstrates the possibilities for carrying out similar integration for other completed projects retrospectively. A brief description of how the pilot exercise was carried out follows. Naming conventions The first task was to create an overview of the naming structure and the degree of coordination the models had in relation to each other. Element Tagging The next thing that needed to be decided was the way rooms and doors etc. were to be tagged in the 3D models. This was to ensure that the model and the resulting data extraction would be consistent with the current naming standard deployed by the health board and therefore the transition to this new way of data extraction would be less onerous. As the models had already been developed before using a different naming convention, each object’s relevant fields had to be individually renamed. This was completed in two separate models to reduce file size and make the models smaller in size. The rooms were isolated out in a separate model allowing full control over the rooms while still keeping file size down to a manageable size. This room file was then loaded back to each individual model file to streamline and maintain naming and GUID integrity in each file. For CAFM integration, the first task was to ascertain which room each element was located in. This was achieved by ensuring that each element was given a parameter which would identify it its location. One challenge that needs to be addressed at this stage is to distinguish between elements (e.g. some mechanical equipments) that are fully located in a room (or an identifiable space) and those that may extend over multiple rooms (or spaces). For elements that were fully contained in a room, this was already a pre-populated field. However, for those elements (e.g. pipes) that were not fully contained within a room or not in a room at all (e.g. located in partitions) it was necessary to manually enter the relevant information for the elements. To undertake this task, the MEP model was linked to the other project models (e.g. architectural, structural and rooms), thus, allowing the MEP elements to be seen in the context with the rest of the models while leaving only one editable model. Considering the enormity of task of manually entering all the required information for each element, the room model was “bind linked”, which is a feature in most BIM software to make previously linked files a part of the model in the form of a group. Groups are editable within BIM software, so essentially by binding the room model to the MEP model, contents of the room model were transferred into the mechanical model.

32

As a final step, as most of the elements that were not automatically given room allocations where they were situated in the ceiling space and as rooms can’t be viewed in reflected ceiling plans, duplicate floor plans needed to be made to show all elements. This helped assign the remaining elements to the respective rooms. The items that were in walls were allocated to the room which the system was feeding, for example if pipes were feeding a sink in a room, the pipes would be assigned to that same room. With all these changes in place, the steps required for achieving information and data exchange between the models and CAFM and EAM systems were deemed to be complete. At the time of writing this paper, live testing of data exchange between Archibus, 3i Studio and Revit and Autocad based models is ongoing and the initial results are encouraging. It should be pointed out that with AIR templates in place, future projects will be driven by the naming conventions and tagging specified in these templates and therefore steps outlined here for retrospectively aligning these between models and CAFM and EAM system should not be required.

6.0 Summary and Conclusions The paper provided guidance on what may be required to be in place to implement Level 2 BIM in projects. It was also discussed that a more pragmatic approach would be to make the transition from Level 1 to 2 and finally to 3 through a number of intermediary sub-levels and not in single big steps. A L2 BIM-based asset procurement strategy requires a number of discrete processes to be implemented. A comprehensive process mapping exercise needs to be undertaken to link the existing processes to the L2 BIM-based workflow. Subsequently, a number of key guidance documents need to be developed, most notably the Information Requirements specifications templates, BIM protocols and the BIM project execution plan templates (this is optional for the client organisation but the advantages have been explained in section 4.4). The BIM PEP is primarily to be used by the supply chain to articulate how they will deliver the information requirements specified in the IR specifications. This paper has presented the implementation of such a L2 BIM framework for the NHS Scotland. From a technology perspective, the implementation of such a framework can be done in a number of discrete and gradual steps rather than a wholesale transition which may be fraught with several challenges. A gradual, stepped transition to level 2 was proposed and discussed. The benefits of using a structured BIM strategy as the one presented in the paper for the whole lifecycle of an asset includes major efficiency gains through seamless transfer of structured handover information for ongoing operation and maintenance of the asset. This process can only be achieved by managing the 33

information exchange process throughout the project lifecycle by having appropriate BIM processes, standards for information exchange and BIM protocols in place so that the information exchange activities are contractual obligations of all stakeholders in the project. The entire process needs to be overseen and managed by an Information Manager who is to be appointed by the client organisation under the existing BIM protocol arrangements. The main benefit and advantage of adopting the approach presented in this paper is a more structured digital information management for the entire lifecycle of an asset resulting in efficiency gains accruing substantial cost reduction to the client organisation as well as all other stakeholders. The cost savings could be the result of more effective collaboration between all stakeholders, thus, eliminating much of the costs associated with lack of interoperability as well as major design-related construction issues being addressed early in the lifecycle due to better modelling and detection of these issues (like clashes) more quickly and easily. Several challenges that could be encountered in implementing L2 BIM were discussed. In large devolved organisations (like NHS Scotland), several of these challenges arose due to the devolved nature of responsibilities as well as the different technological infrastructure in place in different parts of the organisation. A brief description of information exchange with CAFM and EAM systems was also outlined in such scenarios. However, it should also be noted that as the approach signifies a different way of procuring assets, ultimately the industry needs to adapt itself and people, economics and politics might well be the final arbiters who decide on the fate of this new approach. It is hoped that the description of the approach and its implementation in NHS Scotland will be hugely helpful in undertaking a L2 BIM-driven procurement approach, particularly in large asset owing client organisations.

7.0 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Health Facilities Scotland for providing the funding for carrying out this work. Thanks are also due to the several members of the various boards of NHS Scotland who contributed to the development and implementation of the NHS Scotland BIM strategy. The assistance and support provided by David Philp of UK BIM Task Group is also gratefully acknowledged.

34

References Barlish, Kristen and Sulivan, K, How to Measure the Benefits of BIM – A Case Study Approach, International Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 12, pages 149-159, Elsevier, 2012. BIM PEP, BIM Project Execution Planning Guide 2.0, http://bim.psu.edu/PSU, 2010. BIM Owner’s Guide, BIM Planning Guide for Facility Owners, Version 2.0, http://bim.psu.edu/Owner/Resources/default.aspx, 2013. BIS, BIM Strategy Report, Department of Business, Innovation and Strategy, March 2011. Bew, M. and J. Underwood, Delivering BIM to the UK Market. Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies. J. Underwood and I. Umit, IGI Global: 30-64, 2010. Bew, M. and Richards, M., BIM Maturity Levels, 2008 (as referenced on www.bimtaskgroup.org) Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, Jurgen M.,

The Project Benefits of BIM, International

Journal of Project Management, Volume 31, pages 971-980, Elsevier, 2013. Crotty, R., The Impact of Building Information Modelling, Spon Press, 2012, pages 212. Cheng, J. and Lu, Qiqi, A review of the efforts and roles of the public sector for BIM adoption worldwide, Electronic Journal of IT in Construction, ITCon, Vol. 20, pages 442478, 2015. Chen, K., A Strategic Decision Making framework for Organisational BIM implementation, PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, http://orca.cf.ac.uk/88267/1/2016ChenYPhD.pdf, 2015.

Cheng, J.C.P., Zhang, Y., Han, C.S., Law, K.H. and Kumar, B., Web-enabled Model-based CAD for Design, ICCCBE Conference, Nottingham University, 2010. 35

CIC (2013a), Employer’s Information Requirements, Construction Industry Council, February 2013. CIC (2013c), Scope of Services, Construction Industry Council, 2013. CIC,(2013d) Best Practice Guide for Professional Indemnity Insurance when using Building Information Models, Construction Industry Council, 2013.

CIC (2015), PAS 1192: Part 5, Specification for Security-minded Building Information Modelling, Digital Built Environments and Smart Asset Management, BSI, 2015. Coates, S. P., BIM Implementation Strategy Framework for Small Architectural Practices, PhD Thesis, Salford University, http://usir.salford.ac.uk/30239/1/paulcoatesthesis.pdf, 2013. CRC, Adopting BIM for facilities Management: Solutions for Managing the Sydney Opera House, CRC, Brisbane, 2007.

Dossick, C. S. and G. Neff, Organizational Divisions in BIM Enabled Commercial Construction, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136(4): 459-467, emerald, 2010. Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R. and Liston, K., BIM Handbook, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 2013. Fellowes, R. and Liu, A., Research methods for Construction, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. Gallaher, M.P., O’Connor, A.C., Dettbarn, J.L. and Gilday, L.T., Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2004. Fox, S. and Hietanen, J., Interorganizational use of building information models: Potential for Automational, Informational and Transformational effects, Construction Management and Economics, 25(3): 289-296, Taylor Francis, 2007. Government Construction Strategy, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, June 2011. Gua, N. and London, K., Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry, Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 19, No. 8, 998-999, 2010. Hayne, G. and Kumar, B., BIM Capability Audit for UK-based Contracting Organisations, International Journal of 3D Information Modelling, IGI Publishing, Vol. 5, Number 4, 2017.

36

Jung, Y. and Joo, M., Building information modelling (BIM) Framework for Practical Implementation, Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 20, No. 2, 126-133, 2011. Kassem, Succar, B., Dawood, N., BIM: Analysing Noteworthy Publications in Eight Countries using a Knowledge content Taxonomy, BIM: Applications and Practices, Eds. Issa, R. and Olbina, Svetlana, ASCE, 2015. Kumar, B., A Practical Guide to Implementing BIM in Construction Projects, Whittles Publishing, pages 140, 2015. Kumar, B., Building Information Modelling: Road to 2016, International Journal of 3D Information Modelling, Volume 1, Issue 4. pages. 1-7, 2013. Kjell Ivar Bakkmoen, From Politics to OpenBIM Requirements, https://buildingsmart.no/sites/buildingsmart.no/files/02_frompoliticstobim_kjellivarbakkmoen.pdf, 2013. Kjell Ivar Bakkmoen, From Politics to OpenBIM Requirements, https://buildingsmart.no/sites/buildingsmart.no/files/02_frompoliticstobim_kjellivarbakkmoen.pdf, 2013.

Love, Peter E.D., Matthews, J., Simpson, I., Hill, A. and Oluwole, A. O., A Benefits Realization Management Building Information Modeling Framework for Asset Owners, Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 37, pages 1-10, 2014. Moore, Geoffrey, Crossing the Chasm, Third edition, pages 276, Harper Business, 2014. NBIMS, https://www.nationalbimstandard.org/, 2016. OmniClass, http://www.omniclass.org/, 2016. PAS1192, Part 2, Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using Building Information Modelling, British Standards Institution, 2013. PAS 1192: Part 3, Operational Asset Management – Processes and data for the commissioning, handover, operation and occupation stages, British Standards Institution, 2014. Porwal, Atul and Hewage, Kasun N, BIM Partnering Framework for Public Construction Projects, International Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 13, pages 204-214, Elsevier, 2013.

37

Passfield, Ron, Action Research for Organisational Innovation, Work-Applied Learning for Change Conference, Adelaide, 2013. RIBA PoW , www.ribaplanofwork.com, 2013. RICS, http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/glossary/bim-intro/, 2016. Rogers, Everett, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-07432-5823-4, 2003. Sagor, Richard, Guiding School Improvement with Action Research, http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100047/chapters/What-Is-ActionResearch%C2%A2.aspx, 2015. SCIM, Scottish capital Investment Manual, http://www.scim.scot.nhs.uk/, 2015. Sebastian, R., Changing Roles of the Clients, Architects and Contractors through BIM, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(2): 176 – 187, Emerald, 2011. SFT, The Pathfinders Project, Scottish BIM Delivery Group, http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/our-work/sft-build/construction-procurementreview/building-information-modelling-bim/pathfinder/, 2016. Statsbygg, Statsbygg Building Information Modelling Manual Version 1.2.1 (SBM1.2.1), 2013.

Succar, B. and Mohammed, K., Macro-BIM Adoption: Conceptual Structures, International Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 57, pages 64-79, Elsevier, 2015. Succar, B., The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement, CIB World Congress, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3357.1521, 2010. Succar, BIM maturity Matrix, Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Underwood, J. and Isikdag, U., Editors, pages 2-50, Information Science Reference, 2010. Succar, B., Building information modelling framework: A research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders, Journal of Automation in Construction, Volume 18, No. 3, pages 357-375, 2009. Uniclass, https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/uniclass-2015-an-update, 2015.

38