BIMBoy: First Wisconsin, now Texas mandates BIM for state projects

It’s not so easy to buy a perfect written essay, especially if you are intent. I consult you to set buy essays and to be void from question that your work will be done by writing services

Hey are you a professional journalist? This article is very well written, as compared to most other blogs i saw today…. anyhow thanks for the good read!

(...) though not directly related to this topic, still www.bdcnetwork.com is one interesting source of information on this subject(...)

(...) though not directly related to this topic, still www.bdcnetwork.com is another useful source on this topic(...)

[...]www.bdcnetwork.com is another wonderful place of advice. Car insurance claims [...]

Ah!!! at last I found what I was looking for. Somtimes it takes so much effort to find even tiny useful piece of information. Nice post. Thanks

Ah!!! at last I found what I was looking for. Somtimes it takes so much effort to find even tiny useful piece of information. Nice post. Thanks

@BC BIM (Building Iformation Modeling) is not intended to do everything for you. It cannot model itself, design itself, nor be ideal for every projects. It is not intended to replace all of us that are engineers out here. The intent of the concept is to help steamline the whole process, improve coordination and reduce mistakes. People get it set in their mind that you can flip the switch and all of sudden work in BIM. It is going to a huge step similar to the step from had drafting to CAD drafting.

keep the information and comments coming here.. texas is taking the lead- this is an historic even.. let's have a discussion- anything that comes to our minds..

The problem with Texsas mandate opposed to Wisconsin is that they are not having it open standard, buildingSMART with IFC connection as a mandate. This limits their approach severely.

This also creates a new type of business specialize to only BIM Modeling, which will provide services for those smaller Construction companies who does not have the technical personnel or the equipment or software. There is not need for an smaller company to expend in training either. And even better using BIM technology will bring up the profit to the company in such a way that what ever money was spent in the BIM Model will worth a fortune of savings in real construction, so don’t worry. Every body will win for sure.www.gameli.com

While there is a place for BIM (primarily for new construction of sophisticated facilities) it seems to me that this is just another opportunity to add cost for little benefit. 99% of projects are remodels and renovations of buildings that are not and probably will never be modelled in BIM or anything else. Forgive my cynicism, but until BIM vendors can actually show documented proof of REDUCED PROJECT COST for all projects that incorporate BIM I'm not very interested. These new regulations look like they will simply reduce the number of design firms and contractors who will be allowed to do work in the locations that have adopted this mandate, thus driving up costs and reducing the value of the final built projects. The people who are excited about this are chiefly those who intend to market the service, not the ones who could eventually mine the vast data banks that are created for information that will help them maintain their facilities. Only a few facilities organizations are sophisticated enough to appreciate the potential benefits of BIM.

for all those who fear paper will go away- fear not.. because even if the folks at the building permit department chose not to wrestle with all those big sheets of paper and instead prefer to use their big widescreen flat panel monitors with DWF and navisworks- all you would probably have to do is ask them in a soft tone to please hit that print button for you- and you might get all the paper your heart desired.. albiet for a small fee and a green tax..

the only design tool revit is not is the pencil.. but revit takes over nicely when the pencil work is finished.. first to revit massing- then on to building the virtual flexible model that can easily be reshaped into anything.. then the CDs are extracted nearly automatically from the model.. then touching up the sheets with 2d details using the revit drafting component that can do anything autocad can do.. after the model and the CDs are finished- it goes into navisworks and gets inspected just like a building inspector would inspect a real building.. gee why didn't i think of all this- i could be rich..

Chris Tisdel said: "some team members will have to get over their aversion to the ribbon".. on july 31 autodesk made it possible for us to switch back to the classic user interface with RAC 2010 sp1.. i have been using the classic UI with RAC 2010 everyday for 21 days- and i can assure you it works perfectly in every way.. i use nothing but the drop-down menus and the most basic keys- and it''s very relaxing and very fast.. don''t forget- revit was completely rebuilt from the ground up for 2010 as a 64 bit platform.. RAC 2011 will be that completed foundation that our BIM future will rest on..

Until the construction industry as a whole addresses systemically the issues with applying BIM technologies, does it really matter how productive one BIM application is over another? At what point does a model replace stamped 2D drawings? When do you actually start doing Design/Build and not Design/Bid/Build? Will the new guidelines address the legal liabilities if models are used for coordination instead of the old fashion collaborative efforts of picking up the phone and talking with the other design teams? Right now with Revit all I see is the industry heading into “design silos” and using the look in the model for all your answers mentality. No matter how you skin this cat, Revit is not a design tool for Architects or MEP firms, but more of a marketing tool for everyone.

@Maybe Revit MEP 2018 - you hit on a very big point, fees. Even before the economic downturn we (MEP consultants) were being faced with having to do "more" when it came to Revit projects. MEP work has traditionally been schematic, which Revit is not. When we are faced with modeling our work in Revit we must do so more precisely than in CAD. Now I am not saying this is a bad thing, I understand that this has the potential to provide more accurate documents. It does represent more time, but fees remained the same. Now, with the economic downturn fees are being pressed downward, and pressure for Revit MEP is increased. We are being faced with doing much more, and being exposed to greater liability (for counts, take offs directly from Revit model) all for less and less money. @Chris - "I simply believe that BIM is the 'best effort' of choice for that coordination, even in its current form" I'm sure you realize, but I would like to state to the readers my opinion on the idea that just because it is BIM project means it is 100% coordinated. This concept is a false, Revit will not prevent you from generating conflicts (you can draw a pipe through a duct with no warnings). In Revit MEP you must run a separate process to detect conflicts. The resulting report from this process is extremely verbose, generating many false listings, rendering it useless. Additionally the concept that Revit is 100% dimensionally accurate is unwarranted. Revit will happily allow me to draw a 6" pipe in a 6-1/4" chase. But in the field the flange on the fitting will prevent installation. In the end good coordination is dependant on good engineering, something our firm has been proud of for over 60 years. Trying to replace the human engineering with Revit is a recipe for disaster.

my large A/E firm is using Revit MEP *now* on fully integrated BIM models. everyone, get over yourselves, get the *right* informtion, and get on board. as for all the other half-handed comments, I just don't know where to start anymore. Sorry to leave you behind.

TexasJetter, I work for a MEP firm based out of Houston, and we agree with your comment 100%. My background is also in electrical design. We “completed” a 180,000 sq ft project using Revit with much heartache. We experienced firsthand the problems that you mentioned (plus many more). I have no doubt that Revit MEP has the potential to be a great design tool, but in its current development state, Revit MEP is simply not ready (and shouldn’t be marketed as such). Considering only a few problems - the poor performance of Revit, the long list of necessary workarounds, the compatibility issues between versions, and the unnecessary (and redundant) recreating of objects from the architectural model (room objects, lighting fixtures, etc) - shows that Revit makes the engineer much less efficient than before with CAD. I guess the bigger question is: will the TFC allow engineering firms to increase their design fees to compensate for this loss in productivity? This is especially true since Revit is marketed as a “design tool” to be used by the engineer as opposed to a draftsperson. The time previously spent by the engineer on design is now wasted in the inefficiencies of Revit. Been there, done that. That’s my 2 cents.

First, let me say that I sincerely apologize to Mr. Etters, if he left our brief conversation with what he felt was a less than adequate answer to his question(s) or a feeling that I was in any way “dismissive” to his inquiry. On the contrary, I welcome questions and comments and hope that I would come across as pragmatic and honest in my assessment of BIM and the tools and processes that support it. MEP-related BIM software needs work and all of us who work with design, engineering, and construction professionals are well aware of the limitations. The comments seem Revit MEP centric and I understand why, but the pro’s and con’s of all the software at are fingertips is up for debate in some form or fashion, no matter what your favorite platform happens to be. However, I would argue that a current limitation in software or a library of elements is not, in itself, a reason to halt the “vision” and will likely get resolved as versions evolve. The entire process, not unlike everything else we do on a daily basis, will continue to grow and get better as we all coordinate to our best efforts. I simply believe that BIM is the “best effort” of choice for that coordination, even in its current form. Second, the move to BIM was an approach that was agreed upon, organizationally, from the bottom up and the top down. BIM offers many divisions in the State, responsible for many forms of data that arise from a new State building project, the ability to work as responsibly and efficiently on a project during design and construction as is currently possible. Further, as an owner, we must “own, operate, and maintain” that data per statutes for the life of a building… no small task. BIM allows us to do that in ways that simple CAD, documents, or spreadsheets cannot come close to. In the end, whether you want to believe it or not, there was no lobbying by vendors or any other outside sources whatsoever. Innovation is an unending process that we all must be passionate about, not a sales pitch, and I can assure you that fact has never been lost on me. Third, to the statements posed by “NotConvinced”… although I cannot speak directly to your scenario, in the case of our BIM projects, the entire project team will use the latest version of BIM software on building projects and kudos to you for having done just that, in your case. Yes, that means, even in the case of the Revit suite, some team members will have to get over their aversion to a ribbon… Finally, as Mr. Yoders stated, our guidelines and standards should be posted on our website in the near future. I look forward to and expect more debate and questions at that time and appreciate any helpful criticism that moves us forward in the process that is building information modeling.

Thanks for the info, TexasJetter. Like I said, as soon as they send us the standards and guidelines, they'll be posted here.

Just this week, I attended a local user group (sponsored by a Revit reseller). One of two main topics was "project collaboration." During the discussion, I learned that for an MEP consultant (me), we will have to install and maintain all recent versions of Revit, one for each Architect that has a project on that particular version. So, if Architect A works on 2008, I have to install and maintain Revit 2008. If Architect B works on 2009, then I have to install and maintain Revit 2009. Of course, I had to buy Revit 2010 (becuase that was the current version), so I can't even use what I bought, because architects that we work with have not installed it yet (and don't want to with the new toolbar). No one in their right mind can consider this productive collaboration. As TexasJetter mentions, the program does not seem to have a firm foundation when it comes to engineering features. As we get further into this reseach, I think some interesting facts will develop.

I had the (dis)pleasure of listening to Chris Tisdale at a recent Revit Expo in Houston a couple of months ago. His stance goes much further than simply requiring the use of BIM. What he described was a complete electronic delivery of documents (no more plotted "blueprints"). During the review process the return/outcome is DWF markups, which the consultants would then incorporate into their BIM model. Delivery to contractors was the BIM model, and of course at the end of the project as-built corrected BIM model to the state. While I agree with his vision, the truth is that the software is not there yet (from a MEP perspective). A fact that Chris admitted (yes I asked him), but was dismissive of this fact. Putting aside for a moment the horrendous performance of Revit, it is lacking some very basic objects, like conduit, cable tray, bus duct (you can guess from this my background is electrical). The load analysis of electrical loads is no where near NEC compliant. Revit MEP proponents will be quick to point out that you can "model" conduit as piping, and currently that is the only way you can indicate 3D routing of conduit, but that is my point. BIM is all about describing the object intelligently. If I indicate something is conduit I would expect to query it and find it's properties listing conduit type (PVC, EMT, etc), wire size, and other properties that describe electrical conduit, not Plumbing piping. This is just one example of Revit's shortcomings, but it seems that nobody wants to consider the MEP perspective. No, we are not a bunch of whiners, I want BIM to work. I like the concept of BIM, I just don't like where the software is at this point in time. Autodesk is producing a product that they are selling as a "design tool" to model a project. Then, when the are bombarded by the MEP community about the poor performance they recommend that you don't create full systems, or split the model apart. If I don't create full systems it can't be used as a design tool, which is what they are selling it as. So we are left with a poor performing 3D drafting tool that we have to fake out to draw in. Architects are not saddled with the complex calculations that MEP has, structural has a option to turn calculations off to gain speed, MEP does not. MEP gets to link in 300Mb of consulting data BEFORE we start our work. Maybe now you can start to get a picture of our performance issues. To further illustrate the infancy of Revit MEP just look at the changes being made to it. From release 2008-2009 they completely changed the "room" object to a "space" object for Mechanical loads. This was a major change, rooms could be linked/copy/monitored from an Architectural room definition, spaces have to be created by the MEP designer. Yes there are good reasons to divorce the two, but it was a fundamental change. From 2009-2010 they replace the entire Mechanical load program. 2009 used software based from a company called IES, 2010 uses a totally different engine. Again, I'm not saying the change is a bad one (that is still under review), but it clearly shows that Autodesk is still trying to nail down the core features of Revit MEP. @Revit3D.com - you state "BIM is only limited by those who refuse to get on board the train". I am willing to get on the train, but I would like to have an engine, wheels, and track, not just a passenger car.

Has ASCE let the engineering community down once again?? Why do we let the government force us to use something, which seems to be propritary. If the software lobbies can do this well, why can't ASCE?

Just heard back from Texas. This is from Chris Tisdale, BIM Director at the TFC. "We will be 'publishing' to our TFC website our standards and guidelines sometime during August. I will be happy to drop you an email when this is done. Unfortunately, I cannot release them prior to the public rollout, but our hope is that the standards/guidelines will act as a clear roadmap as to what the State of Texas requires when it comes to BIM. I have also created a BIM template that will be available to TFC project team professionals (AEC's) on a project by project basis." Tisdale also said BIM is a powerful process and tool that enables even sole proprietorships, let alone 100+ staff firms to do more with less. So they feel fine about going forward with the requirement, even for the small firms that do work for the TFC.

Looking at all the letters of the alphabet that were thrown down I saw none that would suggests a background in engineering so I can forgive your ignorance of the wood design/analysis/engineering use case and BIM. Having a truss tool does not mean there is a worthy solution. There are these things called metal plates that hold trusses together and the companies that make these plates control the truss industry. Until their solutions are integrated into the modeling/analysis system you have nothing. Solid wood is not structural composite lumber or wood I-joists. Both of which I specify exclusively and both of which require manufacturer specific solutions. The company I work for uses Revit. But this is still currently project based and almost exclusively steel projects. Wood is not an option. Besides building design, I am actually one of the individuals who reviews various software technologies to keep our organization abreast on what is available in the market place. Our 3rd party Autodesk seller had the cold-formed steel add-on you mentioned demoed to me about four months ago. It was a very slick solution but just like Chief Architect it is only drafting/modeling. There was no connection to a cold-formed steel analysis/design application making it an incomplete solution. I went to Autodesk University last year and while there sat through a class that turned out to be how to fake wood design in Revit. And this is pretty much what the instructor called it. If you are truly interested in what it will take to get Autodesk’s BIM technology to the point where it is a viable alternative, get a demo of Mitek’s application TrussFramer. I had our truss supplier demo it to our Autodesk rep and it blew him away. My comments are based on the premise that there needs to be a monetary floor on project size because the main BIM player do not have a viable wood solutions and from what I saw at Autodesk University they are years from having this solution. I see BIM as the future but it’s not ready for this mandate. LEEDS on the other hand is a joke or what I like to call green building for dummies. But that is a topic for another blog on another day.

Great feedback. 1. West Coast SE. BIM equals teamwork. CAD doesn''t allow for object based design, analysis, collaboration, quantities and everything the contractor needs to build the building. The software/training argument is so 80s and just not true. So many smaller firms have moved to Revit because the workflow and process of CAD based drafting just doesn''t work. You will become a barista while others becom BIMistas. The efficiency of BIM in the design and CA phase would actually save you on salary, thus negating any additional costs for hardware, software and training. CAD creates defensive contractor documentation which really costs you time and money. 2. Hold On: It''s a new emerging market and the rules and guidelines are being developed and fast. Look at the AIA A195 docs for the documents that your peers creeated for guidelines. Architects created Integrated Project Delivery documents, not owners, contractors or anyone else. 3.BC: There''s a fantastic set of products from tools4revit.com. Truss, Rafter and floor beams in wood are created in minutes. There''s also a stud program for Revit called Metal Wood Framer strucsoftsolutions.com/mwf.asp. That'' answers all of the issues for your truss, floors and studs. I have a question for you. What can you build with a shovel? Do you only use one pencil to draw with? Every architect has a #3, #5, #7 and #9 pencil and lots and lots of red pens for redlining. The reality is, there is no one program that does everything. Sure, not every file type works perfectly with each other, but so what. It''s the process and workflow of BIM that''s superior to that of CAD. The same people that bitch about BIM refuse to share their DWGs with others because of copyright and liability issues. BIM is a business solution. Every contractor has a team of people, subcontractors, suppliers, labor and management all working together to build the building. They see BIM as an efficient way to manage the process of building the building. Not using BIM technology is a selfish approach that will lose you more and more work as contractors become design builders as they hire architects to be part of their BIM team. Once you look at what you do as a business and not a charette, then you''ll understand and win more business. BIM is only limited by those who refuse to get on board the train that has already left the station. Stop shouting about the problems without knowing more than everyone else about the solutions. There''s a lot of serious people out their working on BIM, LEED and IPD that don''t have time for the whining. I won''t even apologize for being so harsh because when you''re not part of the solution, you''re part of the problem. The war is over. Do you think you can fight BIM when even the AIA fully embraces it? For full disclosure, I''m an Autodesk reseller, 3rd generation general contractor, LEED AP and a BIM evangelist. Oh my. An Autodesk dealer trying to sell you software. Well, when you have no business and no pipeline, you have no money to spend anyhow so we only focus on contractors and sustainability focused architects using Revit. I hope when you finally realize that I''m right and you should have made the shift, I just hope it''s not too late for your business and your industry.

Guys, as soon as the standards and guidelines are available I'll post them here. I think they'll be similar to their pilot program guidelines and standards but I don't want to assume anything.

Chief Architect is a drafting/modeling only application. When they create the Chief Engineer add-on then this may be a product that merits consideration. But having a solution that is only capable of drawing models and saving what’s in those models as objects does not assist/expedite the engineering process. What is in the model will still need to be manually transferred to another software to run analysis to validate the members in the model and any/all changes will need to be manually transferred back. So you still have 2-3 software needed with numerous design files using incompatible file formats. This negates one of the primary features of BIM. Until the engineering of the truss layouts, floor systems that include floor trusses and wood I-joists, cold form steel studs and non-prescriptive shear wall systems are addressed there is no financial incentive for engineering firms that perform wood design to jump on board the BIM train even if they wanted to. Here BIM is being mandated for all projects which implies an expectation of light-framed structures also being included. There isn’t BIM software out there that currently supports the engineering portion of a light-framed project so what is the point in mandating BIM? This appears to be an example a poor decision based on limited knowledge of what BIM is, how it is used and what are its current limitations.

While I'm not opposed to BIM in general, it certainly doesn't pencil out for our small firm from either an equipment/software cost basis or an training/efficiency standpoint. Our many years of education and experience will not be available to these owners. I expect that there will be a largely medium-to-large-firm monopoly on this work for a few (or more) years... and a lot of very young engineers at computers putting out some potentially dangerous work. I may become a barista....

It looks like they are not available to the public. "To that end, the FDC has developed a clear set of standards and guidelines that all private sector partners will have access to prior to any involvement in a state project. " Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Chief Architect seems to be a good candidate for a wood BIM software. I have no experience in it so I can't say for sure, but the demonstrations I've seen are impressive. Much more user friendly than Revit. Wood systems can be developed in any software. I do believe, however, that blanketly forcing BIM on every project will ultimately have the state of Texas paying for some AEC firms to learn the programs.

so where are the guidelines? I see a well written announcement, a snazzy video but for the life of me I can't find a link to the actual guidelines. "The FDC has developed a set of standards and guidelines that all private sector partners will have access to prior to any involvement in a state project." Any help would be appreciated.

Not having a monetary floor on project size makes this idea untenable. There is no combination of BIM/analysis software out there that can do wood design. The combination of prescriptive/engineered solutions that are typical in the design of wood structure has yet to be addressed by any of the major BIM players and without having them on board the cost associated with having to use steel/concrete for every project will backfire here.