The Story
Let’s start with a short story about two AEC organisations that – once upon a time – decided to adopt Building Information Modelling. Both organisations were mid-sized firms, operated within the same market and had the same mix of disciplines. Both were able to undertake large Design and Construct (Design and Build) projects of value exceeding $200m within the Health Sector. But this is where the similarities ended:
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
The Yellow Organisation decided to invest substantial energy and money to acquire object-based software (say Revit®, Tekla® or Vico®). This decision came after a group of enthusiastic and technology-savvy staff succeeded in convincing management to trial BIM. These ‘champions’ then organised and undertook the necessary training as recommended by their BIM software retailer and supplemented their learning by sieving through countless online forums. After a handful of months, a few setbacks and a couple of successful pilot projects, this group of individuals – now considered superheroes by some of their peers and computer-hugging fools by others – stood ready to implement what they’ve learned across the organisation. New BIM components where generated on-the-job and novel standards/processes started to slowly push out existing CAD practices. The management, now excited about the commercial possibilities of the new deliverables, instructed its marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Yellow’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.
The Blue Organisation invested substantial time and energy in investigating, developing and then gradually implementing an overall BIM strategy, tailored training plans, modelling standards and workflow protocols. Internal and external help were sought to communicate, train as well as educate staff [1] about BIM technologies and processes. The management team, after leading this implementation effort from day zero, succeeded in getting all staff enthusiastic and engaged in developing BIM products and processes. They continuously conducted internal assessments to ensure that their BIM productivity is sufficiently stable and that they can predictably and uniformly deliver high-quality models and drawings. Convinced that BIM is the only efficient way to deliver services, they allowed their marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Blue’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.
End of short story...
Now, from an onlooker’s point of view (a client for example) both organisations appear equally qualified, just as able to deliver the promise of BIM....But they’re not equally qualified – far from it. These two organisations demonstrate a significant problem in identifying the difference between BIM Capability - the ability to generate BIM deliverables and services, from BIM Maturity - the extent, depth, quality, predictability and repeatability of these BIM deliverables and services.
Let’s have another look at the above organisations using two different lenses:
|
# |
Yellow Organisation |
Blue Organisation |
|
1 |
Uses Object-based software tools |
Also uses Object-based software tools |
|
2 |
Can collaborate internally using multi-disciplinary object-based models |
Same as left... |
|
3 |
Can deliver at least one large BIM project of construction value exceeding $200m |
Same as left... |
|
4 |
Has experience in the Health Sector |
Same as left... |
|
5 |
... |
... |
|
Quick Conclusion: the Yellow and Blue organisation have very similar BIM Capability |
||
Table 1. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Capability lens
|
# |
Yellow Organisation |
Blue Organisation |
|
1 |
Bottom-Up initial BIM approach |
Top-Down initial BIM approach |
|
2 |
Champion-lead implementation |
Management-lead implementation |
|
3 |
No evidence of overall BIM strategy |
Overall Strategy preceded implementation |
|
4 |
No evidence of internal communication about BIM implementation efforts |
There is evidence of internal communication as part of the BIM implementation effort |
|
5 |
Standards were learned, developed and extended on the go |
Standards and workflows where readied prior to wide implementation |
|
6 |
Evidence of change-resistance (cynicism) |
Evidence of wide-spread enthusiasm |
|
7 |
No evidence of skill/knowledge assessment |
Evidence of skill/knowledge assessment |
|
8 |
.... |
.... |
|
Quick Conclusion: the Blue organisation has higher BIM Maturity than the Yellow one (this conclusion will be explained in more detail in the next one or two blog posts) |
||
Table 2. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Maturity lens
Capability is thus a notion quite different to Maturity...I'll quickly expand on this a bit more by re-discussing BIM Capability before directly jumping into the more intricate topic of BIM Maturity:
BIM Capability, a reminder
As explored in Episode 8, three ‘capability’ Stages are needed to pass from pre-BIM status to IPD. These Stages represent revolutionary changes (as opposed to evolutionary mutations) and are characterised by reaching a milestone or achieving minimum proficiency. For example, an organisation is considered to have reached BIM Capability Stage 1 by the relative easiness of deploying an object-based software. BIM Capability Stage 2 is reached when an organisation undertakes model-based multi-disciplinary collaboration. Finally, BIM Capability Stage 3 is reached when an organisation undertakes network-based, interdisciplinary model integration. In essence, the three BIM Stages are useful in identifying the minimum abilities of organisations and project teams but are not that useful in analysing or comparing how well they model, collaborate or integrate their deliverables.
Organisation which are not aware of the above capability progression usually refer to themselves as generically ‘BIM able’ as soon as they deploy a few copies of ArchiCAD, Tekla or Bentley Architecture. So how can individuals, organisational teams, organisations and project teams rate their own performance or that of their potential partners or competitors? How can clients filter out BIM wash from BIM reality? They need – we all need – some kind of ‘tool’ that can be applied to define, measure and hopefully improve these BIM abilities [2].
BIM Maturity
The concept of Maturity is not new and have existed for some time in many other industries but the most potent representation of this concept came from the software industry’s Capability Maturity Model. CMM is actually a ‘process improvement framework’ originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a software project. It was developed in the late 80s for the benefit of the US Department of Defence [3]. It’s successor, the more comprehensive Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), continues to be developed and extended by the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Capability Maturity Models identify a set of standardised process improvement levels (or maturity levels) which allow implementers to achieve significant business benefits. Research into CMM has already identified the correlation between process maturity and business performance [4]. The use of maturity models is thought to lead to increased productivity and Return On Investment (ROI) as well as reduced costs and post-delivery defects [5]&[6].
The ‘original’ CMM is specific to the software industry and is not applicable to construction as it does not address supply chain issues and its maturity levels do not account for the different phases of a project lifecycle [7]. Although there are a few – some are extensive efforts - which focus on the construction industry, there is no comprehensive model that can be applied to BIM, its implementation stages, players, deliverables or its effect on project lifecycle phases.
I’ll leave it here now....In the next couple of Episodes, I’ll discuss currently available and applicable Maturity Models (including the one by NBIMS) followed by a new BIM Maturity Index which I think you’ll find interesting...
[1] “Education is about learning for oneself, and training is about learning for the sake of someone else” as beautifully summarised by Dr. Megan Squire after analysing this Monthly Review article.
[2] The full quality axiom dictates that "what cannot be defined, cannot be measured; what cannot be measured cannot be improved, and what cannot be improved will eventually deteriorate” (Dr. Daniel Meade, bettermanagement.com)
[3] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.
[4] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.
[5] Jaco, R. (2004). Developing an IS/ICT management capability maturity framework, Proceedings of the 2004 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries. Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.
[6] Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., & Bush, M. (1993). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model - Version 1.1 (Technical Report): Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
[7] Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D., et al. (2000). SPICE: a business process diagnostics tool for construction projects. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 7(3), 241-250.
