The Future of BIM Interoperability

I agree with Nathan that BIM will be integrated into the construction process regardless of problems with information transfer. While interoperability is admittedly a difficult and unavoidable problem in the current push for BIM as the industry standard for transfer of design information, I see some hope for improvement in the near future.

Within the next 5 years, it is my opinion that interoperability among programs within a specific software provider's repertoire (for instance, all Autodesk products) will improve to the point of near fluidity, so that there is even transfer to a central database of all aspects in a model. (This is one example of such a case in recent history) As Mr. Kuszewski discussed "saving to central" and "cloud-based computing" last week, it became evident that this level of capability is certainly present and need only be implemented across all products in a process known to the scholarly community as "data alignment." In essence, it is merely a process of organization and intentional consistency within a software group to facilitate interoperability and eliminate data loss between products/software-types.

However, in the same time period, I would not be surprised if the chasm of interoperability between competing software groups (ie. Autodesk vs. Bentley) widened. From the previous week's research, it seems like the degree of difficulty in information transfer is directly linked to the depth of information contained in a model. For instance, 2-D CAD models can very simply be converted to an open format, while 4 and even 5 dimensional models in Revit may contain a large amount of information about the individual building members that cannot be transferred cleanly to any other format than that in which they were created. By this line of reasoning, increasing capabilities of competing software types may likely complicate the transfer of data between them.

The solution to this un-interoperability, as Elda describes so well, might just be push for the IFC file format as a required standard. Despite many designer's aversion to this file type, it seems that on a global level, the IFC format is encouraged because it is an open source file type. The capabilities of design using this format are not as limited as one would think, and it certainly appears that they are improving. The Build Qatar event in 2012 was a great showcase of these capabilities.

Sources:

Aligning Misaligned Systemic Innovations: Probing Inter-Firm Effects Development in Project Networks

Intelligent distributed production control    

Asite announce BIM Academy, BIM Unlimited, Aidea and Niven Architects as winners of Build Qatar Live 2012

The Future of Uninteroperability

There is no doubt in my mind that BIM is the future of engineering.  It is only going to get more advanced and more critical for students to become familiar with the process.  That being said, I cannot say the same advancements will be made toward interoperability. 

As I said in last weeks post about being familiar with the hassle of interoperability through a team project.  Out of the 40 hours we were supposed to spend on the project we spent at least half of that trying to figure out how to transfer data from one program to another, and we still don’t have a fast and easy method to use. 

Mike says it perfectly, “[Interoperability] will only persist and grow into more of a headache as new technology constantly keeps pushing [...].”  This statement sums up that the path towards interoperability will be a struggle.  I find that the solution that he comes up with is flawed, however. I don’t feel that a program that can take any file type and format it into another file type with minimum loss is the solution.  Is it a good idea that should be pursued, of course, because it is a step in the right direction.  I just don’t feel that it will solve all of our problems.  The BIM software is constantly updating, and therefore, this new software would constantly have to be updated in order to be sufficient.  That is just another license that companies need to buy and those licenses aren’t cheap.  Kayleigh voiced her doubts about multiple licenses last week in class.  On another note, software packages like AutoCAD and Revit already have file converters that can take a file and convert it into other workable file types.

I personally think that it would be easier in our field, Architectural and Civil Engineering, to be more communicative with the people that are going to be working on the project.  Then there could be standards set on a per project basis.  The architects would know what the structural engineers are going to use and vice versa.  I also think that companies should be more flexible in the software packages that they use.  I have had experience where certain architects (and I know engineers do it to) ONLY use said program.  A lot of the programs structured similarly.  They might have minor differences but for the most part they all do the same thing.  A prime example of standards being set on a per project basis, that Eric mentioned last week, would be that any project done for the Army Corp of Engineers requires a Revit Model.  That being said, everything needs to be done in Revit.  That way the transfer of files will have limited flaws.  

Of course having standards on a per project basis isn’t ideal either.  It also requires multiple licenses, a lot of computing power, which in turn requires a lot of money.  That is the opposite of what companies want to do.  We are working towards a solution to minimize the 15.6 billion dollars that the industry wastes on interoperability.  In conclusion, I do not think interoperability will make much advancement in 5, 10, or even 15 years.  I think methods will be made in order to work with it and possibly even cut those 15.6 billion dollars in half, but I think it will be a consistent problem.  

Interoperability - What can we do to move forward?

Last week, as a group we discussed our reading of the BIM Handbook, and specifically the chapter on Interoperability. We discussed what was currently being done in the industry to provide for a standard such as this. Both Elda and Mike talked about the IFC format in their post as the main champion of interoperability. We discussed, that as good an idea as it was, it would need the complete backing of the Major players in the industry (ie: AutoDesk and Bentley). However, their involvement to me would seem like it would need a greater push than "whining" from engineers and architects. A large reason BIM has been adopted so fast over a regular CAD, is that governmental agencies have started to require a BIM model to be submitted, along with the standard plan and section drawings. I personally believe this type of requirement, lead to a faster adoption of BIM. I also believe that the same type of requirement (like specifying an IFC model with rigorous standards), could lead to better interoperability faster. I believe some governmental agencies do require an IFC model, however the regulations on exactly what is contained in the IFC model are not as strict as they could be. The question of whether we want a government dictating what regulations should be placed on IFC models however is a completely different argument.

I found what I thought was an interesting article by Voytek Pniewski, where he said this about the process one should go through to make sure that there were not any interoperability issues when opening a new BIM file:

"The tests should utilise more than one, ideally several, software applications, including IFC File analyzer, a conformance assessment tool, which is used to evaluate coverage of IFC product data model files.  Solibri Model Checker should be also employed to analyse BIM models by visual examination methods."

This seems like a very long an arduous task just to make sure that what you opened, is what you should be looking at. However, if the model you are working with is a good model (designed with exact specifications), you might actually save time that you may have spent field measuring distances by just looking for inconsistencies in the BIM. Overall, the idea of a BIM, is to save time in the beginning and have an accurate model of a building. However if all of the information that is put in the model is lost during transfer from program to program, does BIM still make as much sense?

Interoperability in the Future

As was discussed last week, interoperability is a huge issue in the use of different BIM software. It cause numerous problems and as Elda points out, costs billions of dollars every year. Interoperability is a problem that will only persist and grow into more of a headache as new technology constantly keeps pushing what can be done in drawings. If new software with new capabilities grows faster than the capabilities of interoperability, the task of working these drawings will become almost as daunting as building the building itself.

Hopefully that will not happen. Hopefully in the future, before it gets too out of hand, the major companies in the field will take steps towards making their software play more friendly with everything else, or, similar to what Mitchell said, someone will create a software dedicated just to handling all of the different file types, a program to take in any file type and, with minimal losses, output it as any other file type. If these things come to fruition, the hassle of interoperability could quickly become a thing of the past.

Sadly, and frustratingly, this is unlikely to happen. Competition in the market will likely prevent the large companies for playing nice together, and the chance of one mega-program capable of what I described would probably not work nearly as well as it would have to to really make a difference. This is very frustrating as interoperability seems like an issue that should be able to be overcome, however, it is likely that it will never be fixed in a truly sufficient way.

Idealist me would like to believe that in five years, our technology is powerful enough that file exchange is nothing more than a few clicks. Realist me thinks this is not going to happen that soon, if ever.

Sources:
BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors

Interoperability and Future

Reading the second version of the BIM Handbook (2011), it is obvious that there have been multiple attempts to improve the interoperability of the different BIM applications. There have been attempts to implement the IFC exchange model in various parts in order to integrate all phases in the construction industry, which will then improve the productivity and efficiency. As Ben-David mentioned in his post, BIM software is used to design and construct buildings before any decisions, regarding the materials or sites, have been made. It is very important that the BIM software can be used by all the design and construction teams involved. According to the article “Interoperability and BIM. Development and Use of Building Information Model,” current technologies that manage the construction process are not adequate enough to address all the issues that are developed throughout the process; there is a 10% loss due to wasted materials and 30% of the construction process is rework. As a result, there is a loss of $15.8 billion per year due to lack of interoperability in the software used in the design and construction operations. This fact was also discussed in class last week.

The key difference between the 2008 and 2011 versions of the BIM handbook is the expansion on the other BIM-related standard efforts; IFC and XML schema are not the only exchange data models that are used. As Eric Kuszewski mentioned during his presentation last week, IFC is a great schema for software exchanges, but not always greatly executed. The 2011 version highlights the use of COBie, or Construction Operations Building information exchange, which deal with operations and maintenance and relationships between the construction team and the owner. The development of new sets of outlined-structured classification tables have replaced the building-related classification systems and are used in BIM tools and methods.

                There is still a lot of work that needs to be done in order to achieve interoperability among all the BIM software programs without any challenges. Until this point, a lot of these changes have to be performed manually and it results in lower productivity and efficiency in the construction industry. BIM software programs are extremely popular worldwide and will take over the construction industry to efficiently complete buildings, as Wang Chunyi suggests in his blog post.

Sources:

Zhyzhneuski, A. (2011). Interoperability and BIM. Development and Use of Building Information Model. http://www.academia.edu/2053381/Interoperability_and_BIM._Development_and_Use_of_Building_Information_Model

Sabol, L. (2007). Technology, Change and the Building Industry. http://dcstrategies.net/files/2_sabol_technology_change.pdf

BIM Handbook (2011). Chapter 3 Interoperability.

Interoperability - Why can't we all just get along?

I agree with John, that the current state of interoperability is insufficient given our level of technology.  Often the approach to transfer drawings to/from CAD is so difficult that it is easier to start from scratch. Last week as I listened to Group E discuss the capabilities of computer software and hardware, I was intrigued by the idea that all of the different programs for building modeling should have some sort of intercommunication. This fact seems obvious from an outside perspective. However it is easy to see how each type of modeling developed separately, catering to the specific needs of its respective industry. Of course, HVAC contractors are going to have different drawings from that of a structural fabricator/erector, and so on. 

I saw this first-hand when working with a steel subcontractor on my last co-op.  The architectural drawings were different from the structural drawings, which varied even from the outside erector's steel drawings, which further varied from our own stair drawings, and all of this had to fit inside the openings on the inconveniently separate precast plank drawings. There was an enormous amount of coordination required just to fit a stair tower into a building for which drawings had existed almost a year prior. All of this confusion could clearly have been reduced by the implementation of one unified building model. (To the contractors credit, they did provide CAD drawings after a while that could be used by all of the utilities contractors.) The availability of a singular 3-D model, at the very least in terms of building geometry, is an invaluable asset over the course of project.

As an idealist, I find it frustrating that, as Nathan and David point out, perfect interoperability will likely never exist due to the nature of competing industries and numerous technical issues such as incompatible XML schemas and display outputs. I would further point out that the diagram Elda used, while informative in showing the relationship between each program, is somewhat misleading in showing two-directional arrows between every linked program. Although I'm not completely sure, I would suspect that some, if not most, of the programs listed are not compatible in both directions. For instance, something developed in SAP 2000 cannot be converted to a general Tekla Structures format, then reconverted to Bentley, and then converted again to a format viewable in Autodesk programs. Still, it seems that the way forward for most compatibility programs seems to be native BIM formats such as DWG, RVT, DGN, or GSM files, as shown in Figure 3-5.

All this considered, I wonder if it would be beneficial for a third (or 25th or whatever it is) party to develop a program that merges the top BIM file types into some sort of super-program that handles the functions of every BIM program available and compiles them into one cohesive model. Such a program, if it were successful, would of course greatly enhance the construction process. However, given the much more likely possibility that it flops, the effort would only serve to muddy the already murky waters of BIM compatibility.

Sources: 

BIM handbook: a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors

Chapter 3 - Interoperability

 

Interoperability

Chapter 3 of the BIM Handbook discusses the importance of Interoperability, which is the the interaction of file types with different programs. With just a quick look through the chapter you can see how many different file types there are. Considering how much information one file has with it it is very important to make sure that file in its entirety can be transferred between one program and another. This may seem like a simple task at first, but it is anything but.

One of the reasons that file conversion is not as easy as it sounds it because there are so many different standards by which different companies make their products. David Morrison talks in his blog why different companies either usually have good interoperability or poor interoperability, and it comes down to, of course, money. But I do not think this is the only reason for such diversity. As software becomes more and more powerful, the things it can do grows exponentially. When the first CAD softwares were created there were typically used just for simple drawings, however now a CAD drawing is so much more than just lines, often having data such as material properties and other information. This leads to different professions needing different standards for their CAD drawings to contain the information they need. This comic wonderfully displays why there are so many file types.

Despite the shear number of file types and the problems that can arise from trying to make them accessible, there are several foundations and committees that have worked and are still working on trying to make the industry completely interoperable. This is a task worth working towards. I was in Nathan's group on the GIS project he talks about and the different file transfers required were ridiculous. For one file of about 700kb, it needed to be converted in one program so that it could be imported into another program. This process would take the 700kb file and make it into about seven 1mb files that when more than 1 was opened at a time would crash the program. Its problems like this that make interoperability a dream of every engineer and architect and any one else who uses these types of files across different software.

I think Autodesk has a good approach with its Revit line of products because it has a separate program for architectural design, structural design, and mechanical design, however all of these programs work off the same base so that they can all be combined easily. This is the kind of interoperability that the industry as a whole needs to achieve.

Interoperability

Interoperability is explained in great detail in chapter three. In a lack of words the text defines that interoperability is a conversion of data from a unique system to another unique system. A personal example for me would be: In my high school drafting class I designed a house using RoboCad and several years later transferred that information to AutoCad. The objective was to convert a set of 2D drawings from RoboCad to a single 3D drawing in AutoCad. Since there is no computer interoperability between the respective software products, then the mode of interoperability was my own labor of redrawing the 3D version in AutoCad from the printed sketches in Robocad. This mode of interoperability is severely inefficient.  

The text stresses that interoperability is of paramount importance in building systems because of the many disciplines it incorporates. We as a building society should focus on how well we can transfer data from one aspect of the building phase to another. Cost to design to construction to occupancy is an example.

So how can we improve this exchange of data between hardware and software? The text elaborates that in order to achieve more robust data exchanges it is imperative to create a standard in which the data is exchanged. In effect this standard who figuratively funnel multiple data sets into a single recognizable solution.

There are problems that arise from creating a standard of data exchanges. Fellow classmate David Morrison hits the nail on the head with his explanation. David Says’ “A company that does not provide as much interoperability is typically one who wants its standard / program to be king above the rest. Whereas a company that is looking for high interoperability would most likely be a company that wants its product to infiltrate the market.” Essentially if a common standard is the key to interoperability then a single entity must design the system. If competing entities are designing for their best interest then it defeats the purpose of interoperability.

An interesting dilemma arises from the concept of interoperability. In essence the only possible way to achieve 100% efficiency of data transfer is to eliminate the transfer altogether. This would mean that competition must be eliminated. For example we would eliminate the use of different BIM products and use a one single product. If Revit were the product we choose as a society then Autocad and other modeling tools would be abolished.  But since competition is imperative for market survival the interoperability is a science that must be researched and improved.  Prof. Mitchell hinted at the idea that the future will challenge our interoperability prowess when multiple systems (such as robots) will have to co-exist in a societal fashion.

  SOURCE: 

BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors.  Chuck Eastman, Paul Teicholz, Rafael Sacks and Kathleen Liston  Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Un-Interoperable

I’ve experienced first-hand the challenges with interoperability.  In a course involving geographic information systems I worked on a group project that that required us to figure out the best way to model a building based on given LiDAR data given.  At the beginning of the project we thought we would fly through, figure out what the easiest modeling program was, and then spend most of our time modeling.  However, that was far from the case.  We spent most of our time converting files into formats that the various programs could use.  Luckily the GIS software that was available to us was able to convert the LiDAR into a DWG but that took time and only worked half of the time.  AutoCAD was able to bring the data in but brought it in as a block so the data couldn’t be manipulated.  It was concluded that Revit was the easiest program to use.  Once the data was imported it was used as a template to model the buildings.  This, however, wasn’t a perfect science either.  Much like AutoCAD the software brought the data in as a block and so the data could not be manipulated.  Also, not only was it in block form, it was in a block 4 times the actual size of the building.  There were many other complications but this is just to name a few. 

To me (not being that computer savvy) I believed that compatibility between programs should be as simple as going to a hardware store and picking up a ¾” nut that fits any ¾” bolt.  That’s not really the case, however.  After reading I understand that there is a lot of effort being put into a standard but there is so much work that has yet to be done. 

The business aspect of the reading, in which David discusses as well, intrigued me.  The fact that some companies only make their programs interoperable with each other really frustrates me.  I understand their reasoning, the fact that they are trying to isolate the market and get customers to use their product.  Although, do they not understand that they are preventing something much greater.  They are preventing the engineering firms from being universal, forcing companies to spend their money on more software, slowing down projects, and ultimately preventing progress.  However, completely going back on what I just said, if one company would handle everything it would make the communication much easier.  But that is far-fetched, there is always going to be a competitor and therefore, file exchange needs to be fast and efficient.  Dave also points out a study by NIST where $10.6 billion is spent with challenges involving interoperability.  This number disgusts me; if everything was interoperable this money could be put towards something much greater.   

PS Did anybody else find it remotely funny that Figure 3-3 talking about file exchange they used a floppy disk.   

Interoperability in BIM modeling

After reading Chapter 3 (Interoperability) of the BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors, I was left with a much better understanding of the challenges of interoperability of file formats in the BIM world. I think Tom and Elda did a great job in their articles describing exactly what interoperability is, and why is is so important. I thought Elda's point about the use of XML was very interesting to me, as I am somewhat familiar with XML as a programing language, and I am always amazed to see its potential in areas such as BIM.

What sparked my interest is the reasons behind interoperability. A company that does not provide as much interoperability is typically one who wants its standard / program to be king above the rest. Whereas a company that is looking for high interoperability would most likely be a company that wants its product to infiltrate the market. I do believe high interoperability is of paramount importance, because as a designer, this is always preferable to make choices on which tool can get the job done the fastest. NIST performed a study on the cost of the current levels of interoperability  and how much it is costing in delays and other expenses. The total number they came up with is approximately $10.6 billion (on page 6-17). This was way above the number I would have guessed, and really goes to show you how much time and effort is wasted on what might, on the outside, be considered a trivial subject.

AISC has a page on their website dedicated to interoperability. On that page I found one very interesting statement:

"Interoperability is a fundamental requirement as we progress to more projects being built using a BIM. However, it cannot be taken in isolation. Even if seamless interoperability was possible between the many software platforms our industry uses, there are many other issues that also need to be tackled before it could be taken advantage of, not the least of which are legal and contractual issue."

The idea, that in a perfect world, with perfect interoperability, there are still huge hurdles that must be overcome on the ownership and legal side. This does bring up important questions as to who would be in charge of how the file types are decided, and questions of this nature.

My personal experience with interoperability was during my last job, where we mainly used AutoCAD family of products. I ran into many problems attempting to open other clients projects from microstation, and other programs. the two programs are somewhat compatible, as their files could be imported and exported. However, the files were not perfect by any means once they were imported to AutoCAD. I spent plenty of hours fixing inconsistencies that occurred during the import process. Most of these files were 2D layouts, which should have been a somewhat easy task. The challenges as we move to BIM, where external variables and data must be stored about each object, and the time it takes to ensure that everything was imported/exported correctly is quite a daunting task.

Interoperability

Interoperability is a crucial aspect of BIM, especially due to the complexity of buildings nowadays and the idea that building function as one cohesive machine, rather than a collection of systems. In practice, there are many designers working on each building: an architect, a structural engineer, an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer etc. These people and their systems need to be able to communicate with each other not only on site, but also during the design process. Therefore it is necessary for computer generated building systems created with different programs to be compatible and read by other interfaces.

Elda did a great job briefing about the technical aspect of interoperability in her post. Rather than repeating what she had already said, I would like to touch more of the impact interoperability has on BIM. In order to make buildings more efficient, many building systems are cross-disciplinary. A contractor might want to save cost by providing cheap envelope, but overall the building can turn out more expensive with a larger HVAC system and larger energy consumption. By providing interoperable design methods, the designers can see how their systems will work together in real life. As the BIM Handbook states, is it possible to conduct ANSI calculations using IFC with proper labeling. This can make design more efficient and help in providing ideal solutions in terms of energy management, cost reduction, and systems’ effect on one another. As we move forward to an era of more intelligent buildings, BIM interoperability is necessary to ensure compatibility and communications between systems and avoid errors due to miscommunication and complexity.

It is true that there are still problems with IFC and other formats, such as complex curve interpretation and other problems in translation, but I believe these problems will be solved in the near future. Autodesk software seem to be the most common type of software used today in the industry, which is a step towards standardization; but as long as other programs are used there has to be a way in which files can be translated from one program to another with as little errors as possible for an efficient interoperable BIM design.