Donate Now Goal amount for this year: 2500 USD, Received: 1627 USD (65%)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
Like Tree23Likes

Thread: BIM Level 2 / ISO / British Standards etc

  1.    #11
    Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2016
    Posts
    93
    Current Local Time
    03:47 PM
    John, you seems to be in a similar position to myself. Although i have spent time walking round the office beating people with a stick until they name their families in a BS8541 compliant way .
    I'm not surprised the US dont seem keen on it although from the replies here so far it's more a case of lack of understanding of the purpose of it. I'd be interested to hear how US firms go about facilities management once a building is in operation.
    It will be interesting to see if anyone else from around europe posts about whether they're adopting it as i feel it will be adopted more within europe than perhaps stateside.

  2.    #12
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,187
    Current Local Time
    09:47 AM
    LOL, its not a lack of understanding.

  3.    #13
    Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2016
    Posts
    93
    Current Local Time
    03:47 PM
    maybe not from your posts but definitely from others that certainly seems to be the case. i'd be interested to know how do you deal with FM in the US? is COBie widespread? (i know it originated with you guys). how do you handle file naming, family naming etc and a CDE within your system? do you work solely with companies within your group or do you work with external consultants? do they have to comply with your standards when they work with you?

    apologies for lots of questions but im keen to understand how you work.

  4.    #14
    Autodesk JeffH's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2010
    Location
    The Ivory Tower (Manchester NH)
    Posts
    770
    Current Local Time
    10:47 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by robp View Post
    a case of lack of understanding of the purpose of it.
    The purpose is understood. It is the rugged individualism and rebellious spirit that comes with being an American that does not allow us to be controlled by someone else's "standard".

    As we say here in New Hampshire "Live Free, or Die!" (our official state motto).
    Andrew K likes this.

  5.    #15
    Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2016
    Posts
    93
    Current Local Time
    03:47 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffH View Post
    It is the rugged individualism and rebellious spirit that comes with being an American that does not allow us to be controlled by someone else's "standard".
    and dont forget your modesty too
    JeffH likes this.

  6.    #16
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,187
    Current Local Time
    09:47 AM
    Yeah, im not getting in to ALL of those discussions, in a thread about the iSO clusterf**k standards, because they are presented as an "oh, you understand, than answer all THESE questions to let us know you understand," way, which isnt very productive. A lot of those subjects have been covered in any number of threads, throughout the entire forum, many times before. Im not a librarian. But short version?

    Is COBie widespread? Hell no. In fact, here we basically tell Design Firms if you see COBie listed in the requirements, double your fee (seriously). And i dont feel bad saying that at all, because its true.

    FM- Depends on what systems the building Owner/Operator are using, and that changes all the time. Having said that, COBie also isnt an answer, because its ignoring the bigger problem (at least in the USA) which is that there is a massive disconnect between MEP Design models and MEP Fabrication models, regardless. Its a contractual disconnect. The Design Models ARENT what gets built. So having a COBie jerk-off and making people fiddle with data entry and exports is stupid, when the geometry and object typologies arent even correct.

    EDIT: Forgot to finish this paragraph: So, the Fab models are generally what actually gets built, but in many cases they are in a different platform (still smart, and still 3D and data rich, but in a CAD vertical instead of a revit vertical). We have no issue with this, because they fulfill the needs of the project, and do so with vigor. But there is no way you are getting the Design Teams model (in a more "user friendly platform" to match the fab model, without an entire rebuild. Nor are you getting the Fab model *translated* to another format, without a full rebuild. Or spending weeks of time with IFC to make it work (see notes above on doubling your subcontractors fee).

    Even the subs handling it through Fab Parts now, the data translation from the design elements still isnt 1:1.

    Whats so fascinating to me about the ISO and former BS1192 / PAS standards, is its all one giant data jerk-off. I am YET to meet a firm that will actually produce a set of documents AND the 3D model, to verify that all aspects of the 3D model are geometrically and dimensionally spot on. Its just "data data data." Let me tell you, data is gold AFTER considering the accuracy and constructibility of the geometry. Then i hear people backpeddle *oh well thats what the BEP is for!!!* Oh, really? Please, show me a BEP that says geometry doesnt have to be accurate, but data has to be there, and ill use it for toilet paper.

    Regarding the actual ISO: I have them here. They are roughly 80 pages of paper pushing, "approval processes" and otherwise time intensive non-value-adding "documentation of work" that doesnt actually contribute to the success of a project. Its VERY similar (in my eyes) to the Penn State BIM Execution Document, which is another travesty written by a bunch of people who havent had to deliver real work on a normal budget, probably in forever.

    All that said- If someone (an owner, or Owners Project Manager) sent me this ISO, and said "this is to be used on the upcoming job," then i mean... fine. Its just going to make my fee go way up, and any design partner i work with, its going to make theirs go up too. Its just paper pushing and stupid.

    But back to the simple questions:

    File Naming- Generally yes, we will tell folks what to name models, but its not a major concern.

    Content Naming- Man, how do i say this nicely? You have to be a serious ******* to force all of your consultants to name content a certain way. Thats WHY we have DATA. To avoid this sort of clown-icism. Ive seen BIM Consultants try to push that stuff here, and i laugh them out of the room. WE (my company) has a naming standard we use internally, of course, and if other consultants want to use it? Cool! If they dont, thats fine too. One REAL use of Data, is it tells us what the thing is. If a company honestly tells me they think content libraries need to be renamed to work on a project, i INSTANTLY know that company has NO idea what they are doing.

    This even gets in to the document naming standards (that ARENT present in ISO, but were present (or *recommended* or whatever you want to call them) in earlier drafts of the UK standards that were pre ISO. They are (simply) stupid. And ridiculously over complex, and just not needed. They address made up problems that arent real (at least, they arent problems in the US).

    BTW- i work with companies all over the world. Not just in "my group." In fact, ALL of my projects are with external groups / external companies.
    Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; May 30th, 2019 at 02:29 PM.

  7.    #17
    Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2016
    Posts
    93
    Current Local Time
    03:47 PM
    thanks for taking the time to answer.
    im a bit perplexed aobut the MEP design / MEP fabrication models issue, do the MEP sub-contractors not produce a model? What about structural sub-contractors?
    we are having issues with contractors requiring an "as built" model from ourselves which we do not do as we cannot confirm (nor in some cases agree with) what has been built on site (due to a lot of our contracts being design and build), however the MEP / SE sub-contractors are the guys who do the model (upto LOD 500) and do the install so the model is what is done on site. the SE guys tend to use tekla moreso than revit but the IFC export is fine in terms of data requirements. M&E guys tend to use revit though.
    the FM side of it is of massive importance on large scale jobs over here, my current project is a 20 year multi-use regeneration in a central london location with clients such as google so as you can imagine they are very keen to have excellent FM (in fact they demand it!). the whole site is managed by one company that use the COBie data in their day-to-day running of the site, for example a maintenance guy can go on site with his ipad and scan a light fitting and pull up the info for when it was installed and the date for when the bulb was replaced etc. walls, doors, M&E fittings etc are all available for instant access so that replacement parts can be ordered so that no incorrect parts are ordered.
    the developer has found there to be big savings in the on-going cost of the running of the site and waste is also down.
    but that's by-the-by as COBie isnt part of the ISO anyway (nor will it ever be).
    as for the file / family naming i feel that is an excellent way for people to be able to drop onto any job and find information from other consultants very quickly. if each company has their own naming standards for files and parts it's nigh on impossible for someone new to a project to be able to find relevant information easily. now imagine that on the development i am working on, there are a huge number of large scale buildings each with multiple consultants working on them. for the FM guys to have to learn each companies naming standards so they can access information is a massive waste of time, using the current standards means that the FM guys can go to any building on the site (and any other site potentially) and know where to find the info from any consultant quickly and easily.

  8.    #18
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,187
    Current Local Time
    09:47 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by robp View Post
    thanks for taking the time to answer.
    im a bit perplexed aobut the MEP design / MEP fabrication models issue, do the MEP sub-contractors not produce a model? What about structural sub-contractors?
    we are having issues with contractors requiring an "as built" model from ourselves which we do not do as we cannot confirm (nor in some cases agree with) what has been built on site (due to a lot of our contracts being design and build), however the MEP / SE sub-contractors are the guys who do the model (upto LOD 500) and do the install so the model is what is done on site. the SE guys tend to use tekla moreso than revit but the IFC export is fine in terms of data requirements. M&E guys tend to use revit though.
    Of course they produce models. And fantastic ones. In the platform of their choosing, which is sometimes AutoCAD MEP, FABCAD, *sometimes* its Revit, sometimes its Revit with Fab parts, sometimes its AutoSprink, etc. And they are the people who do the installs, obviously. And sure, they turn those models over to the owner/FM team, who generally dont even have sufficient hardware to open that sort of model.

    the FM side of it is of massive importance on large scale jobs over here, my current project is a 20 year multi-use regeneration in a central london location with clients such as google so as you can imagine they are very keen to have excellent FM (in fact they demand it!). the whole site is managed by one company that use the COBie data in their day-to-day running of the site, for example a maintenance guy can go on site with his ipad and scan a light fitting and pull up the info for when it was installed and the date for when the bulb was replaced etc. walls, doors, M&E fittings etc are all available for instant access so that replacement parts can be ordered so that no incorrect parts are ordered.
    Yeah, its important here too. We arent idiots.

    And this "story" about the light bulb is cute, and i get "told" this story all the time. I also get "told" the story about the maintenance person who gets to decide if they need to bring a ladder to access some Mechanical Component, before they drive to the building. Which begets the question: Why doesnt the maintenance person have the ladder in the truck ANYWAY? Or one AT that building? Its a stupid story. Re: The light fixture: Cool. So, yeah, as long as EVERY time someone changes a light bulb, they are inputting that data in that system, its awesome. BTW, whats the data for? If the light bulb is currently OUT, but im standing in front of it on my ipad saying *well the light was changed two weeks ago, so its not due! (even though its currently blown), so i guess i wont change it?* Or the other way: Its still working but my ipad says its due, so im changing it and throwing away a light bulb that still works? Thats awesome. Lets throw away things that still work. That wont spead up destroying the world at all.

    the developer has found there to be big savings in the on-going cost of the running of the site and waste is also down.
    Just want to make sure i have this right: You mean someone did a case study and the results were that their efforts were saving money and making things cheaper? Well thats a relief. I would hate to see the case study that said *well we thought it was cool but it turned out to be a waste of money, so we are firing ourselves.*

    but that's by-the-by as COBie isnt part of the ISO anyway (nor will it ever be).
    as for the file / family naming i feel that is an excellent way for people to be able to drop onto any job and find information from other consultants very quickly. if each company has their own naming standards for files and parts it's nigh on impossible for someone new to a project to be able to find relevant information easily.
    Dont agree with that, AT ALL. Dont conflate Component naming with being able to find information. They are not the same thing. If you cant find information easily, thats an entirely different problem. Component "Names" are (or should be) rarely used, in the actual data being shown. I dont care WHAT my MEP engineer names their VAV's. I guarantee you i can find them in an instant, whenever i need them.

    now imagine that on the development i am working on, there are a huge number of large scale buildings each with multiple consultants working on them. for the FM guys to have to learn each companies naming standards so they can access information is a massive waste of time, using the current standards means that the FM guys can go to any building on the site (and any other site potentially) and know where to find the info from any consultant quickly and easily.
    Again, if they are relying on "component names" for this, their game is WEAK. End of story.

  9.    #19
    Member
    Join Date
    November 18, 2016
    Posts
    93
    Current Local Time
    03:47 PM
    i think i'll just bow out of this thread. it's obvious that there isnt going to be a discussion. thanks for taking the time to answer my posts though

  10.    #20
    Forum Co-Founder Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    10,187
    Current Local Time
    09:47 AM
    Very welcome!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 1st, 2017, 06:15 PM
  2. National CAD Standards - National Revit Standards
    By wwdreamb in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 30th, 2016, 09:02 PM
  3. Overhead Lines - Underlay View from Level Differs from Corresponing Level's Plan
    By Limbatus in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 12th, 2016, 01:15 AM
  4. Detailing to bs standards or sans standards using revit
    By eleanor in forum Structure - General Questions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 24th, 2015, 01:18 PM
  5. Reinforcement Detailing to British Standards
    By craiglarkin in forum Structure - General Questions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 15th, 2013, 12:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •