• · Tucson Convention Center Addition and Hotel, Tucson, AZ
• · Children’s Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL
• · Crate and Barrel, Toronto, Canada
• · Optima Camel View Village, Scottsdale, AZ
• · Art Gallery of Ontario, Ontario, Canada
• · University of Chicago – New Hospital Pavilion, Chicago, IL

The objectives of the class were to demonstrate that the Owners are demanding a more integrated approach to project delivery, expecting to reduce waste, lower risk and save time lost from mis-planned and mis-coordinated projects. Students were meant to understand the drivers for each project, how the projects were affected, and the interoperability of information they bring to the table.

Students researched and prepared case studies on the major players of the collaborative process for their respective projects. They exemplified in-depth knowledge and a good understanding of the role of the major players, the design workflow, and the construction process. Their presentations brought up several relevant points for discussion and I present them in the following words.

Re-definition of an architect
The foremost concern was the paradigm shift in the definition of an architect, an architect’s role and responsibilities. One graphic representation of note listed the project team as the designer, owner and constructor. It very poignantly noted the replacement of “the architect” by “the designer”.

Reluctance of architects to adopt Building Information Modeling (from here on referred to as “BIM”) versus construction professionals
The noted trend in the industry was the reluctance in the profession to jump on the BIM bandwagon since there are several missing pieces to the puzzle and the fast paced projects don’t allow time to do research and explore. BIM is mostly used by construction industry professionals for they have found that it reduces construction waste, however design professionals see it as a limitation. The presentations exemplified how the “M” in “BIM” is sufficiently utilized but the “I” is underutilized. The effort is further being pushed back since it re-defines the design approach. Also the structured business approach in place does not allow instant adoption of new processes. Another very significant reason for this is that the digital programs still have many limitations and a lot of development in that direction is yet to take place.

The recurring thought is that with some experience, better hardware and better software, the architects will be at a vantage point since BIM will give them more time to develop, analyze and refine the proposed designs.

BIM was used as an attachment, not as a true Integrated Project Delivery (from here on referred to as “IPD”)
In most of the projects, BIM was an attachment to the current process of project delivery. There were examples of smaller integrated relationships between General Contractor and Architect, Fabricator and Architect, General Contractor and Subcontractor, but none demonstrated a true integrated project with the use of IPD contracts and sharing of risk and rewards.

In most cases the same roadblocks existed, a lack of knowledge of the overlapping workflows keeping project participants from truly collaborating for the best benefit of the project. However, it was clear to the class that this is just the beginning of an evolution within the AEC Industry and an acceptance of full contractual IPD is yet to come.

New ways of collaboration
BIM has also re-defined collaboration, requiring people to come together early in the process. Among the various advantages, the most pronounced is reduced risk of budget overruns and schedule delays due to lack of coordination. Many construction matters were dealt with early in the process rather than in the field, which typically increase the number of RFIs and scheduled delays.

All stakeholders share more interoperable information and have more transparency of work, with improved planning and execution of a well-understood process. The projects are seeing reduced time and effort to produce better project results, while working toward a handover for operations and facilities management.

However, there is increased need to clarify expectations and identify potential issues in advance for future reference.

Design Models not used for quantity take-off or analysis
Currently the design models are not being leveraged for analysis and quantification, primarily because the integrity and the accuracy of the models are still doubtful. The construction teams in collaboration with their subcontractor and fabricator teams are the ones working with a higher level of accuracy and detail, with many of their modeling efforts leading to direct CAD-CAM manufacturing processes. The quality and expectations for design models are still developing, as the expertise grows in the industry. There is hope that design models will prove to be more useful downstream in the construction process than is currently evident. Also, digital model checkers such as Solibri and NavisWorks will enhance digital checking of the models and thus, these models will truly be virtual models for design and construction.

After the presentations I continued my dialogue with the faculty members. John Durbrow, the Director of the program who was also present, described the program as a step in preparing the students for success in the emergent practice environment.

John Durbrow described it as very successful. In addition, he expressed his apprehension about the success of the program when it was first launched. Durbrow said “There was, and there remains, a resistance by faculty to appreciate the level of change underway. The defensive sentiment is to denigrate the virtual design environments as mere technical or production platforms. We firmly believe the virtual realm as a method of controlling information and the responsive actions will re-invigorate and broaden the practice of Architecture.”

Donna Robertson, Dean of the College of Architecture, described this program as “A post-professional degree, taken after one has completed the professional bachelors or masters. As such, it is not as much design studio driven as it is a means to develop a specialization geared towards new models of practice, both through BIM technologies and methodologies and through the rise of Design/Build/Develop as a viable practice mode for architects.”

She also defined the major drivers for the formulation of this program. Donna said, “Professional practice trends for Design/Build/Develop and new BIM technologies are creating new educational needs, particularly in a continuing education mode.  There was an advisory group of overseers and professionals, led by alumnus Bob Babbin, working with a few of our faculty, students, John Durbrow and I, to brainstorm the degree’s parameters, as facilitated by an Architecture/ID graduate on the faculty at ID.”

In conclusion, the program is doing very well and has received a lot of interest. From what I have heard, they are moving towards a BIM studio to empower designers and other professionals to harness the power of digital technology and all that it has to offer!

About the Author
Aarti has a Masters in Architecture from College of Architecture, IIT. She has been working in Chicago over ten years and has both a keen interest and constant participation in how Building Information Modeling affects the practice and processes in place for the profession. Currently she is researching on how BIM can facilitate sustainable design right from inception of the design. She can be reached at AartiChicago@gmail.com for further queries.