CIFE
CENTER FOR INTEGRATED FACILITY ENGINEERING
A Study of Handling Design
Information
in Construction Companies
By
Ole Berard & Martin Fischer
CIFE Working Paper #WP128A
November 2011
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
COPYRIGHT © 2011 BY
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
If you would like to contact the authors, please write to:
c/o CIFE, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept.,
Stanford University
The Jerry Yang & Akiko Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building
473 Via Ortega, Room 292, Mail Code: 4020
Stanford, CA 94305-4020
A Study of Handling Design Information in Construction Companies
Ole Berard, PhD Student
Martin Fischer, Professor
Keywords: design information, BIM, VDC, quality, information management
Abstract
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is gaining a strong foothold in the construction
industry but design intent is often communicated through documents, even when a
design and fabrication model is available. BIM can lead to consistent and more
coordinated design entailing fewer errors and improve the communication of design
information to fabrication and construction. However, most construction professionals
are not yet using BIM for their work. Through qualitative research interviews, practices
related to finding, using, and sharing building information were studied on eight U.S.
construction projects in contrast to practices in Denmark, found through a detailed case
study, to understand the practices in use and determine the discrepancies between
traditional, current, and advanced practices. This research shows that design
information is not structured for the planning and construction tasks of builders, which
makes retrieving information error prone and labor intensive. In the interviews, nine
types of design information issues related to planning and construction were identified.
Other than “well coordinated,” the interviewees had no specific quality criteria for design
information and the case studies showed little evidence of a holistic perspective
regarding the value of design information. Detailed knowledge of handling design
information can inform development of information systems and methodologies and
improve design information.
1
1
Introduction
In the architectural, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry, design information and
processing pf design information is the basis of many work tasks of builders, such as estimation,
scheduling, and procurement. In prevalent practice, information about the design of a building is
transferred from the designer to the builder through documents either on paper or increasingly in
digital form. The emergence of Building Information Modeling (BIM; Eastman and Siabiris, 1995)
and Virtual Design and Construction (VDC; Eastman and Siabiris, 1995) implicates replacing
documents with digital integrated information. Research has established that BIM and VDC
methodologies can improve the design process (Flager et al., 2009; Shea et al., 2005) and design
review (Hartmann and Fischer, 2007), the builder’s estimation (Staub-French et al., 2003), planning
(Heesom and Mahdjoubi, 2004), and work coordination (Khanzode et al., 2008), and they facilitate
prefabrication (Sacks et al., 2010). However, according to an industry study (McGraw-Hill, 2009),
the use of BIM and VDC methodologies by builders is mostly limited to reducing conflicts (83
percent of the responding contractors), communication (82 percent), spatial coordination (78
percent), and prefabrication (78 percent).
Many studies show that the quality of the design and design information is related to problems
in construction (Johansson and Granath, 2010; Josephson and Hammarlund, 1999; Love and Li,
2000) and operation (Chong and Low, 2006). The perceived value of design information is not well
aligned between designers and builders (Andi and Minato, 2003; Tilley and McFallan, 2000). In the
United Kingdom the perceived quality of traditional tender documents in terms of missing
information, incomplete drawings, conflicting information, inadequate specifications, software
difficulties, and errors and mistakes has been declining the last 10 to 15 years (Laryea, 2011). It
has also been established that management of design information can be time consuming (Flager
and Haymaker, 2007).
However, there is only a limited amount of detailed empirical understanding of how builders
retrieve necessary information for their tasks from the extensive pool of design information. The
relation between informational deficiencies and construction and operation problems has been
established. The discrepancy between the alleged values of design information is well known in
2
research and practice. Still, there is little insight into the different types of informational problems
that builders face in prevalent document-based, as well as BIM-based, design information. The
objective of this study is to shed light on builders’ handling of design information in three ways.
First, we establish the common practice of how builders retrieve design information for their work
tasks. Second, we identify the types of problems that professionals encounter when retrieving
information. Third, we describe how the identified issues are influenced by the use of BIM and VDC
methodologies. In further research, in-depth understanding of the specific informational problems
can lead to the use of a holistic framework to measure the quality of information, methodologies,
and organizational settings. For AEC professionals this framework eventually enables the receiver
(i.e., the builder) to require quality information from the sender (i.e., the designer).
2
2.1
Review
Bridging the Gap between Designers and Builders
Since the European renaissance (early 15th to early 17th century; (Ackerman, 1997) the role of the
builder and the designer have been separate; until then the builder was also the designer. As a
result, the design specifics needed to be mediated to the builder. Typically, this was and still is done
through drawings and specifications. The construction of the Palazzo Sansedoni (1340) in Siena,
Italy, is one of the earliest examples of the use of orthogonal and to-scale drawings and
specifications (Toker, 1985), as known in present practice.
Information systems (IS) are defined by Alter (2008, p. 451) as “system(s) in which human
participants and/or machines perform work (processes and activities) using information,
technology, and other resources to produce informational products and/or services for internal or
external customers.” The AEC industry is reliant on IS consisting of human participants (in this
case, the builder), rather than machines (i.e., computers) to perform work on information from
other actors (in this case, the designer) using information technology (IT) to view, not for
automation, to create informational products (e.g., estimates, schedules, logistic plans).
3
In other industries IS has increased the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization (Hevner
et al., 2004) by improving the handling of information and knowledge. This is typically achieved
through IS by automating business processes (Broadbent et al., 1999) and providing necessary
information for human intervention. In other engineering industries, such as automotive and
aerospace, object-oriented product models and the integration of production knowledge for the
benefit of design and production is an established topic in research (Hvam, 1999; Yang et al., 2008)
and industry- and companywide design IS are common. More current IS research and development
seeks to provide the user with relevant information through task (Holz et al., 2006), context (Ye
and Fischer, 2002), and location (Cheverst et al., 2002) awareness. Mithas et al. (2011) show that
providing access to precise, timely, and reliable data and information to relevant entities and
stakeholders (i.e., information management) enhances organizational performance in terms of
process, customer, and performance management. It might seem implicit in IS research that digital
information is preferable over paper. However, paper can be a key artifact within an organization
that is not easily replaced digitally and might be incorporated in IS, as described by Mackay (1999)
for air traffic control and Nomura et al. (2006) for commercial airline pilots.
2.2
From Omniscient Databases to Task-Specific Information
In the AEC industry the emergence of micro computers (i.e., PC) and Computer Aided Design (CAD)
in the 1980s have fostered the vision of using computers, databases, and applications for design,
planning, and construction instead of drawings and specifications. Eastman (1981) describes
“integrated design databases” that connect geometry and product properties to enhance
productivity and enable design and shop drawings, as well as cost estimates. As CAD became widely
accepted in AEC during the 1980s the geometry was stored in CAD databases. The CAD geometry
could then be linked to object data in other databases and extracted by logical queries to perform
“other [than drawing] functions” (Teicholz, 1989). Because the information needs of AEC
professionals change as the design, planning, or construction of the building evolves, Zamanian and
Pittman (1999) envision flexible schemata that define information exchange based on objectoriented models with information and functionality through simple heuristics that adapt throughout
the project’s lifetime and connect manufacturer data into the design. Previous research focused on
4
an omniscient database; current research strives to understand information in the task’s context
(Eastman et al., 2010). Boddy et al. (2007) envision developing construction project and taskspecific (e.g., estimation, energy analysis, scheduling) scenarios that describe information in the
context of the work performed—integrating both unstructured data from documents and structured
information from databases through semantic analysis in the information repository.
Traditionally, it was believed that the connection of databases would provide the infrastructure
for an AEC IS. Today, information has to be seen in the context of the task that needs to be
performed. Since work routines in the AEC industry change (Hartmann et al., 2009) and
construction knowledge has not yet been formalized sufficiently (Fischer, 2006), the task-specific
information is presently unique for every project.
3
3.1
Method
Definition and Limitation
Design is “a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a
particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements,
subject to constraints” (Ralph and Wand, 2009, p. 106). The primary agents in the design of a
building are the designers, architects, and engineers, but product information from building product
manufacturers and detailing and engineering from builders also contributes to the design.
Information is essentially “news and facts about something” (Losee, 1997, p. 257). For this
research design information are the building specifics needed by the design team (architect,
engineer, manufacturer, builder, etc.) for communicating with relevant recipients (such as owner,
user, municipality, builder). In this research we focus on the subset of design information needed
by the builder to estimate, plan, and construct the building. This subset currently consists of
drawings (cross sections, details, floor plans, elevations), specifications for the different disciplines,
and schematics and schedules. As the design evolves, changes are covered by addendums, answers
to requests for information (RFI), and change orders. The traditional medium of design information
is documents. Recently, design information is supplemented with, but not replaced by, BIMs. For
this research the design information itself is independent of the medium.
5
3.2
Data Collection and Coding
The focus of this research—to establish the common practice of builders to retrieve design
information, identify the types of problems that builders encounter, and describe how the problems
are influenced by the use of BIM and VDC methodologies—is highly explorative. Explorative studies
require a qualitative and inductive research methodology that allows the theory to derive from
empirical studies. The research methodology was based on Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss,
1967), which derives theory on an inductive basis with no preconceptions. The data was collected
by direct observations in a case study (Yin, 2009) and additional qualitative research interviews
(Kvale, 1996) with builders to achieve in-depth understanding of the research focus. The analysis
was based on the Grounded Theory methodologies of constant comparison (to be able to adjust the
interview guide continuously) and open coding (to derive the types of problems inductively).
The current practice of finding design information was established by direct observations and
interviews of builders in a commercial construction project in Denmark, referred to as the Danish
case. The qualitative research interviews were performed with builders in the U.S. Pacific West
(Seattle, WA; Los Angeles, CA; and the San Francisco Bay area, CA), referred to as the U.S.
interviews. The sampling strategy for the U.S. interviews was extreme cases, that is, unusual cases
that are especially good or problematic (Flyvbjerg, 2006). To sample projects that are especially
good in BIM and VDC methodologies the U.S. Pacific West was chosen out of the researchers’
evaluation, as this is one of the most advanced regions with respect to BIM and VDC
methodologies. Participants were initially sampled based on the researchers’ knowledge about their
technology maturity. The sample was extended by recommendations of the initial sample, asking
the question, “Who else would be good to talk to?”
The U.S. interviews consisted of three parts: (1) a semistructured section to explore both
current-use BIM and VDC methodologies, and current praxis and problems in information findings;
(2) a presentation of the findings from the Danish case to enhance the interviewees’ understanding
of the research and confirm the findings; and (3) a validation of the study and an in-depth
discussion of design information. At every U.S. interview between one and three interviewees were
present, preferably from different levels within an organization to get a holistic picture of the
6
problem. The interviews were documented by notes taken during and after the interview, and
pictures and documents from the interviewees such as drawings, slideshows, and handouts—
following the Grounded Theory approach of “everything is data.” Notes were preferred over audio
recordings to encourage interviewees to provide open and honest answers.
The coding of the data (open coding) led to the identification of 129 information issues. The
coding led to three levels of problems: (1) 77 unique issues, (2) 16 high-level issues, and (3) nine
types. The identified high-level (HL) issues and types are described below.
For the purpose of this research the use of BIM and VDC methodologies is categorized into
three profiles (see Figure 1). The purpose is to communicate the BIM status of the interviewees’
projects. More complex classifications do exist in practice and research; however, this study needed
a very simple model, based on three profiles observed during the study that relate to the industry
study’s findings (McGraw-Hill, 2009). The profiles are used to cross reference the nine types of
problems identified in this research through the 8 US interviews and the Danish case study in order
to inform qualitatively whether the BIM and VDC profile influences the identified types of problems.
Figure 1. BIM and VDC profiles based on observations in the study.
4
4.1
The Danish Case
The Sample
The Danish case is a commercial construction project including 35.000 m2 of office space and
18.000 m2 of parking space outside of Copenhagen, Denmark, with a design-build contract. Most of
the building was designed in traditional 2D, and the contractor had access to the 2D drawings, both
digital and paper. At the time of the research the construction work was almost finished. The
7
building was chosen to study the process of finding information for windows in a sloped curtain wall
that supports the elevated roof of the atrium connecting several office wings (see Figure 2). The
curtain wall measures 142 meters long and 3.5 meters high and consists of 108 windows, some of
which can be opened. The design was in 2D documents, but the researcher built a simple 3D model
of the curtain wall. This model enabled providing the facts above almost instantly and more reliably
compared to the 10 to 15 minutes the traditional method takes to find such information.
Figure 2. Drawing of the Danish case curtain wall.
The design information on the Danish case is filed as paper, as well as digitally by the builder. For
this study information finding was done on the digital version. The digital version was available in a
folder structure (see Figure 3), first by discipline, that is, architectural, structural, and mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing (MEP), and then by revision date. New revisions of the drawing or
specification, received by email, are archived as PDF documents and a few as CAD files in a folder
for each revision date. During the 3½ years of design and construction a total of 577 revisions of
architectural, structural, and MEP drawings and specifications were sent out and 477 RFIs were
issued by the builders. Three of these revisions were directly related to object of the study (i.e.
curtain wall), whereas eight revisions addressed drawings also showing the curtain wall, but no RFI
was issued. This low number of revisions is due informal communication between designer and
builder.
8
Figure 3. Drawings and specifications folder structure for the Danish case.
4.2
The Practice of Finding Information
The practice of finding information about the curtain wall as it was identified by direct observation is
depicted in Business Process Mapping Notation (BPMN; White and Miers, 2008) and shown in Figure
4. First the current documents are identified, and then the architectural specification is opened, as it
also contains references to drawings. After having accessed the drawings referenced in the
specification, the builder goes through the list of drawings to find more relevant drawings, as not all
are referenced in the specification or on the drawings. If no more relevant drawings are available
and the identified information still is not sufficient or is ambiguous, it is necessary to ask someone:
either the designer or the building product manufacturer. To clarify a product with the manufacturer
it is often sufficient to use the website or to speak with a sales representative. Requesting
information from the designer is a formal process called RFI that potentially results in an update of
the design information. Getting an RFI answer from a designer often takes a week or more
depending on the complexity of the question. In the Danish case 20 documents had to be opened to
study the available information about the curtain wall. Only half of these documents showed
relevant information; the whole process took one hour. The process has to be repeated at least
partially for every revision, eight in this case.
9
Figure 4. BPMN flowchart of finding design information about a curtain wall for the Danish
case.
4.3
Design Information Problems in the Danish Case
The high level (HL) issues identified during the Danish case are described below. They are marked
“HL” and are consecutively numbered. An overview including the related types can be seen in Table
1.
When the design information requires clarification the timing (HL01) of the designer’s or
manufacturer’s answer can interfere with the builder’s work flow. The process of finding (HL02) the
desired information took net one hour, because the structure (HL03) of the design information was
not appropriate for the task. Design information is structured around areas (i.e., plans) and views
(e.g., elevations) rather than around products; hence, information about one product is in many
documents. This process was repeated frequently during design, planning, and construction by
several roles (e.g., project manager, design manager, estimator, foremen) and for several tasks
(e.g., estimation, procurement, scheduling, work planning). Therefore, a significant amount of time
10
is spent on information finding. Estimate: 8–12 professionals and 3–6 times per project for net one
hour results in 24–72 hours per product. The significant effort involved leads the builder to ask,
“When do I stop?” Consequently, the builder will evaluate time consumption against risk of
insufficient knowledge. The consequence of a wrong evaluation is construction errors that could be
prevented.
Type
High-Level Issues
Problems Related to the:
Access
HL09
Builder’s effort to access design information.
Coordination
HL11
Coordination level of different disciplines.
Correctness
HL06, HL07, HL12
Extent of missing, incorrect, or outdated design
information.
Distribution
HL13, HL14
Handling and distribution of the design information.
Format
HL02, HL03, HL08
Flexibility and conciseness of the medium.
Handling
HL04, HL15
Effort to transform or update information for work tasks.
Precision
HL05, HL10
Representation of actual and existing conditions, which
are accurate and unambiguous.
Relevance
HL01
Timing of the information delivery.
Volume
HL16
Number of documents and files, and other media.
Table 1. Types of design information problems and related HL issues identified in the Danish
case (HL01–HL08) and the U.S. interviews (HL09–HL16) through open coding.
The design information in the Danish case included three basic types of information: First,
explicit information is apparent and unambiguous. Among these are measurements, building
products, and color, surface covering, and materials requirements. Second, inferred information has
to be calculated, measured, counted or inferred, or derived from the design information. A piece of
information is transformed (HL04) and becomes suitable for a purpose. Examples include quantities,
elevations, some dimensions, and opening direction. Third, implicit information is using product
requirements instead of functional requirements. The actual requirement is than implicit in the
product type, for example, instead of requiring sun shading, a product that provides sun shading is
11
required. Implicit information adds ambiguity (HL05), for example, it is uncertain whether sun
shading is a requirement or the product was chosen by mistake.
Besides the three types of information in the Danish case, necessary information was missing
(HL06) or was difficult to derive. The placement of the glass façade according to the module grid
and the angle of the sloped façade were not provided; the angle could be derived by the
Pythagorean theorem. Product data was outdated (HL07); two products in the specification did not
exist anymore or had changed name. Information was scattered (HL08) over multiple documents. A
product name that had not been mentioned before appeared on a detail drawing.
5
5.1
The U.S. Interviews
The Sample
The U.S. interviews (see Table 2) intended to focus on specific construction projects. Unfortunately,
this was not possible in all cases, and two interviewees had a broader company perspective. Eight
situations (two companies and six unique construction projects) were discussed and four follow-up
interviews with software developers and VDC/LEAN consultants were conducted to verify the
broader relevance of the identified problems. In total, 23 persons (17 from the eight situations and
six from follow-up interviews) participated in 14 interviews (10 and four). The interviewees
represented different levels of management: three participants came from top management (COO
and CEO) of the company, five were from higher project management (project director, design
manager, senior project manager), three were from company/regional BIM management, and six
worked on the construction projects (project engineer, MEP specialist, planner). The combination of
different levels of management provided a wide-ranging perspective, from the day-to-day problems
to the overall strategy of information management within the company.
No.
Type
VDC
Value USD
Phase
Companies Interviewed
Interviewees
1
Amusement
Level 2
200 m +
Finishing
1: CM (Large, Worldwide)
2 – PM & PE
1: GC (Large, U.S. Wide)
1 – BM
Park Ride
2
Company
Level 2
12
3
Health Care
Level 3
300 m +
Pre Con
1: GC (Large, U.S. Wide)
2 – BM & PE
4
Health Care
Level 2
300 m +
Constr.
2: GC (Medium, CA)
3 – TM, PM, &
Sub (Medium, North. CA)
PE
1 – PM
5
Company
Level 3
6
Health Care
Level 2
300 m +
7
Bio Tech
Level 2
50 m
8
Education
Level 1
10 m
1: GC (Large, Worldwide)
1 – BM
Pre Con
1: GC (US, Worldwide)
1 – PM
Finishing
2: CM (Medium, North. CA)
4 – TM & 3 PE
Sub (Small, North. CA)
1 – TM
1: CM (Medium, North. CA)
1 – PM
Constr.
VDC level = see Error! Reference source not found., Pre Con = Pre Construction, Constr. = Construction, CM = Construction Manager, GC = General Contractor, Sub = Subcontractor, PE =
Project Engineer, BM = BIM Management, PM = Project Management, TM = Top Management.
Table 2. Case profiles and companies.
The companies’ role on the construction projects was primarily the planning, procurement,
and operations as construction managers or general contractor. They handle design information and
experience many of the issues and challenges; the construction work is performed by
subcontractors or self-performing units, which is why two interviews were conducted with
subcontractors. In total, 10 construction companies participated in the study: four large (more than
500 employees) with worldwide or U.S.-wide activities, four medium sized (between 100 and 500
employees), and two small (fewer than 100 employees) primarily based in northern California. The
BIM and VDC maturity was evaluated according to three levels: traditional (no models used),
current (MEP coordination), and advanced (more than MEP coordination) practice (see Figure 1).
Health care projects, hospitals as well as medical office buildings, are overrepresented in the study
due to the current focus on application of BIM and VDC methodologies on projects. Case profile
number eight was a traditional project chosen as a control project.
5.2
Discussing Results from the Danish Case
To confirm and substantiate the findings of the Danish case, they were presented during the U.S.
interviews. The U.S. interviewees confirmed the process, the time it took (HL02), and problems in
timing (HL01). The net time of one hour was recognized but because builders hardly ever work one
13
hour without interruption, the gross time was estimated to be a whole day. An MEP coordinator
mentioned that it took one week to figure out a floor plan, including multiple products, before being
able to ask questions. However, some U.S. projects use a window schedule that compiles the
information in one document and probably speeds up the process specifically for windows. The
typical designer answers questions within one to four weeks and longer for more complicated
questions.
Problems with missing information (HL06), ambiguity (HL05) in functional requirements,
outdated (HL07) product data, and scattered information (HL08) were also recognized. Outdated
products have been seen, as far as specifying products that are not legal by state law. An
explanation offered is that building products change regularly, and designers do not update their
catalogues as often.
“Drawings are the language construction speaks!”
—MEP subcontractor
Drawings have been the established method of communication between design and
construction for centuries. Some subcontractors address issues with the structure (HL03) of
drawings by using enhanced shop drawings, including all the information necessary for the
installation in the field, which are, at least partially, extracted from BIMs.
Disagreement was on the question “When do I stop?” Although some would look at more
documents, such as structural cross sections and addendums and answers on RFIs, others would
stop sooner and either ship their risk downstream to the subcontractor or upstream by making
assumptions in the product submittals to the designers.
5.3
Quality of Design Information
When asked “What is quality of design information?” builders typically answered “That it is well
coordinated!”—which usually meant actual dimensions were given with no conflicts between
disciplines. Builders struggled with differentiating between good design that fulfills the owner’s
requirements and good design information that fulfills the builder’s requirements. Only one
14
interviewee (advanced practice) distinguished quality of design information by time to find
information, relevancy for the task, not out of date, latency, and access. The largely monolithic view
on information quality—well coordinated—seems to be shared throughout the industry and is
evidence that only a few are concerned with receiving documentation that suits their requirements
from the designers.
“Our biggest problem is (design) changes.”
—MEP construction manager
The biggest problem pointed out by the interviewees is that the design and the design
information is fluid and changes often. Design changes are implemented frequently, often because
the client is undecided. Clients and designers do not seem to understand the builder’s need to
freeze the design. However, when asked directly to elaborate on the problems and issues they
encounter with design information all professionals described numerous issues and a wide range of
problems they encounter.
5.4
Information Problems
The physical copy of the current set of design information is often located at the site office; because
of the physical distance for the subcontractor access (HL09) can be a problem. Also, it can be
difficult to identify the current version and retrieve a complete and up-to-date set. Easier and digital
access would speed up the process.
There is a gap between what is designed and what is built. This gap widens when the design is
not based on precise (HL10) and actual dimensions, specific products, and existing conditions. Laser
scanning is gaining popularity to capture existing conditions. Precision is also related to designed
tolerance in building products that are assembled on site that cannot be absorbed by the
construction, but are adding up so that they exceed the overall tolerance.
The design is done by many different organizations and persons. Lack of coordination (HL11)
among them can result in potentially expensive field conflicts. Traditional design is coordinated on
light tables in 2D. With geometrical 3D models coordination can be automated by taking all three
15
dimensions and even installation sequence into account. The result of the coordination is shop
drawings that are coordinated between mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems.
In addition to information that is missing (HL06) and outdated (HL07), information can be
profoundly incorrect (HL12) and overlooks requirements and legislation. Builders spend time
managing information; forwarding relevant information to other actors; distributing (HL13) and
routing RFIs, RFI answers, addendums, and submittals; and a myriad of emails need to be screened
for relevant information.
Builders use a variety of IT systems for different tasks, but many cannot transfer information
between them. Many disciplines and trades use the architect’s drawings as a foundation for their
work. These drawings have to be reduced in detail and distributed every time the architect releases
a new version, which is why interoperability (HL14) is an issue.
Design changes do not always entail updates (HL15) of drawings and specifications, but are
published in addendums and RFI answers. The information is spread over even more documents,
and information management becomes more difficult. A solution is to hand draw the information
about where a product is installed (i.e., as-built documentation) into paper drawings. Problems
arise when this is not put into the digital drawing, which makes it difficult to trace such information
at a later stage.
Design information is spread over different media, such as emails, drawings, specifications, RFI
answers, addendums, and hand sketches, consequently it is difficult to retain an overview of what is
being built (see Figure 5), simply because of the physical volume (HL16). For example, the
specifications on a studied US project consisted of more than 1,600 pages, which makes them
difficult to handle by the construction team. Consequently, builders start memorizing parts that are
important to them, which can lead to assumptions. Also, the volume can cause gaps between
subcontractors and lack of understanding of the scope of the work for the builder.
16
Figure 5. Example of voluminous design information for a Danish construction project (photo
by author).
6
VDC and BIM Methodologies’ Influence on Design Information
To evaluate qualitatively whether the use of BIM and VDC methodologies influence the types of
issues in design information, the three levels—traditional, current, and advanced practice (see
Figure 1)—were cross-referenced with the nine types of information problems (see Table 1 in the
original data set. For the three levels all quotes concerning a type of issue were extracted and
analyzed, and the issue was then evaluated to discern whether it was a major issue that has impact
on productivity, an issue that was time consuming, or was improved, which means that the issue
was addressed significantly compared to traditional practice (see Figure 6).
17
Figure 6. Qualitative evaluation of the extent to which identified issues were addressed.
The Danish case study identified eight HL issues (HL01–HL08) concerning five types: precision,
correctness, format, relevance, and handling. The U.S. interviews identified eight additional HL
issues (HL09–HL16) and touched all nine types. This discrepancy is not due to the additional HL
issues and types not relevant on the Danish case but because the study did not reveal them
explicitly. Many of the issues had been resolved because the study took place late in the project.
Other issues, such as access and volume, seem to be accepted as general conditions of the AEC
industry. Access only becomes explicit in the context of discussing the situation of multiple
stakeholders; it grows as an issue moving downstream. Also, distribution and relevance are issues
highly related to the collaboration on a project.
The issue types are related to the product’s design information (format, handling, volume) as it
impacts the project organization of creating and receiving it (access, distribution, relevance) as well
as to the process of building it (coordination, correctness, precision). Traditional practice does not
address any of these issues. Current practice tries to improve the product by utilizing BIMs and
organization by easing access to information by many actors, as well as providing coordinated
design. Advanced practice is characterized by changing all three perspectives.
6.1
Traditional Practice
Traditional practice, without any models, was identified in the control project (Table 2). Lack of
coordination of design information was a problem in multiple situations. For example, the roof
supports were misplaced according to the design, which caused repeated problems with piping. The
MEP subcontractors build where they found space, rather than according to the design. In total,
over the construction period of two years there were 315 RFIs—a substantial amount for the project
size. As-built information was drawn in by hand (format) and addendums and RFI answers did not
entail updates of drawings and specifications (correctness); therefore, they were pasted onto the
existing drawings by the project manager (handling). Physical drawings were in big piles in the
construction office (voluminous), and subcontractors had to access the most current information
(access) there. Waiting times on RFIs were long (relevance), the answers afterward were
18
distributed to the relevant subcontractors manually, and answers in the form of hand sketches did
not take all conditions into account (precision). Therefore, all types were significant issues on the
project.
6.2
Current Practice
Five of the eight projects used geometrical 3D models for coordination (current practice). For the
five, coordination was significantly improved and field problems were reduced. Design and
production models were created to coordinate the geometry and models were exchanged through
3D CAD files (interoperability). Accessibility was often improved by sharing information online, for
example, on an ftp site. Distribution was still a major issue because updates were notified manually
through email and the ability to track the changes was limited. Also, much information was in the
form of digital drawings and specifications (format) and models were used for other work tasks only
to a limited degree (handling). A subcontractor suggested freezing the agreed-upon design by
burning it onto a CD; a pragmatic solution, but it shows a lack of an effective information
management system. Precision was a big problem: “Designers have it in their paper but does it fit
in reality?” Laser scans were a cost-effective way to address existing conditions in the design but
builders missed realistic conditions in design information and experienced incorrect, missing, or
outdated information (correctness). The gap between design intent and construction was often
bridged by time-consuming RFIs and submittals (relevance).
6.3
Advanced Practice
Two projects with advanced practice were sampled. These projects solved some of the issues by the
use of technology and more importantly by closer collaboration; these projects build on contracts
that encourage collaboration, such as Integrated Project Delivery (AIA, 2009). Extensive 3D
modeling by subcontractors of their work’s product (e.g. MEP systems and dry wall) improves
coordination and information management systems improve accessibility of the design information.
More importantly, the collocation between designers and builders results in precise and correct
information and relevance is improved by coordinating the design sequence and information output
19
with the builders, through so-called pull-scheduling sessions; as major issues are addressed, new
problems arise.
Close collaboration, coordination, and collocation reduce the time spent on redesign through
regular review and feedback. However, current pull-scheduling sessions require many actors to
attend day-long meetings and each actor contributes to only a small part of each meeting.
Subcontractors might not be willing to provide all the needed information; they are typically paid for
design services but their revenue is generated by production and not design consulting. They have
to ensure getting the job and not give competitors an advantage by providing too many insights.
They keep product information private until a construction contract is signed, as product
information and knowledge is crucial for their bids.
Not all designers participated in the collocation; especially architects, who prefer their
downtown offices. Collocation and design-assist is expensive and the owner needs to be willing to
make the extra investment. As projects get more advanced, interoperability becomes a bigger issue
because it is desirable to use the BIMs for additional purposes, for example, to get the design
models into the facility management system. Information is not necessarily reused. Designers build
one model and then subcontractors build another one for their own scope of work. Even though
much information was in the models, a document for a very comprehensive specification was
needed. The advanced practice projects were in the design phase, and here models dominated, but
as the projects move into planning and into the field many of the work tasks might still be based on
drawings, entailing labor-intensive transformation of information, is assumed by the interviewees.
7
Discussion
It is time consuming to find and compile information in a structure that does not support this task.
For this reason builders assess when to stop searching for specific information, based on the time it
takes and the risk of detecting incomplete information. As shown in recent literature, the view on
information is shifting from the idea of an omniscient database to considering information in the
context of the work task. An IS that is aware of the task and the context could provide the desired
information for the builder’s work. This would save time and reduce the risk of finding incomplete
20
information. The challenge is to provide the builder with relevant information for the task at hand.
But how can the system know what information is relevant in the AEC industry where processes and
information requirements are not well defined?
Advanced practice uses pull scheduling for design information to clarify what information is
required; only relevant information is produced. Current pull-scheduling sessions as observed in
advanced practice require many actors to attend day-long meetings and each actor contributes to
only a small part of each meeting. These meetings address a couple of the types of issues by
providing timely information and potentially increasing precision, correctness, and coordination.
The output of the pull-scheduling meetings is not generalized; it contributes only to the
participants’ personal experience and basically, every project starts over. A common and shared
way to document information requirements for actors and tasks on a project-to-project basis can
help collect these experiences. Potentially the documentation of information requirements can be
generalized by analyzing multiple sets and reduce the time used on pull scheduling. However, it is
important to take into account the unique composition of construction projects. This reduces not
only time spent on information finding and creation but it becomes explicit which information is
missing to perform work tasks.
Paper drawings are an important part of the AEC industry of today and there is an important
lesson in current literature concerning air traffic control and pilots. Paper drawings need not
necessarily be replaced but IS could provide better paper drawings as an output, providing more
relevant information on a piece of paper as well as on a computer screen.
8
Further Research
The identified problem types are guidelines for areas that need improvement. Further research can
transform the types into a framework of design information quality, consisting of metrics and a
methodology. The metrics should be based on the identified types of issues as well as results from
the existing literature on information quality in other fields. Measuring design information quality is
necessary to improve the information provided to the builder. Holistic metrics provide guidance to
21
areas that need improvement and follow-up on initiatives. A proactive measurement system can
ensure that issues are taken care of during each project by pinpointing problems and enabling the
receiver to require information from the creator. The metrics need to be supplemented by a
methodology to define the information requirements.
The information needed to perform a task varies depending on the task, the individual actor and the
context of the construction project. To improve Design Information Quality a methodology that can
identify task, actor and context relevant information is needed to require information from the
creator. Pull scheduling, as used by advanced projects, can serve as an inspiration for a
methodology to identify such information. The methodology needs to document the information
requirements with a clear-cut documentation that captures the process and the information, as well
as the organization, to communicate information requirements unambiguously to the creator.
9
Conclusion
The current practice of finding task-specific product information in the design information was
established by detailed observation on a Danish case. The current practice is time consuming and
error prone, the structure of the design information does not support it, and information for a work
task is spread over multiple documents.
Most builders describe design information quality as monolithic but “well coordinated.” This
research identified 16 HL issues that builders have with design information. Eight were identified by
studying a Danish case and eight more through 14 U.S. interviews. Together they provide a
nuanced representation of the various issues builders have with design information. Design
information is understood in the wider set and is provided by architects and engineers, as well as by
subcontractors and building-product manufacturers. Of the 16 HL issues nine types were identified
that are related to design information: product (format, handling, and volume), project organization
or form of collaboration (access, distribution, and relevance), and building process (coordination,
precision, and correctness). Together, all nine issues provide a holistic view of the problems faced
by builders under the design, planning, and construction of a building; focus on product,
organization, and process are the means of addressing them.
22
The comparison of eight U.S. projects reveals qualitatively that advanced practice in BIM and
VDC methodologies significantly improves the identified types of issues. This is achieved by utilizing
BIM and changing the organization to a closer collaboration while influencing the process of building
with precise, correct and task relevant information. However, this closer collaboration comes at a
cost. The design and construction teams both need to invest time in design coordination, planning,
pull scheduling, and collocation, and the owner’s upfront investment will increase.
Further research is needed to define a framework to improve design information quality that
should consist of metrics and methodology. The metrics would measure the effect of improvements
in design information, and proactive measurements on construction projects would continuously
improve the design information. A methodology would develop information requirements based on
the task, context, and actor performing it.
10 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all of the people and companies involved in this
study. We would especially like to thank the CIFE members and MT Højgaard for their support; the
Ejnar and Meta Thorsens Foundation for funding this research; and Rolf Büchmann-Slorup,
Flemming Vestergaard and Jan Karlshøj for their valuable feedback.
11 References
Ackerman, J. S. (1997) Villard de honnecourt's drawings of reims cathedral: A study in architectural
representation. Artibus Et Historiae, 18(35), pp. 41-9.
AIA (2009) C191™-2009, standard form multi-party agreement for integrated project delivery.
American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C, USA.
Alter, S. (2008) Defining information systems as work systems: Implications for the IS field.
European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), pp. 448–469.
Andi, and Minato, T. (2003) Design documents quality in the japanese construction industry:
Factors influencing and impacts on construction process. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(7), pp. 537-46.
Boddy, S., Wetherill, M., Rezgui, Y., Cooper, G. (2007) Computer integrated construction: A review
and proposals for future direction. Advances in Engineering Software, 38(10), pp. 677-87.
23
Broadbent, M., Weill, P., St.Clair, D., Kearney, A. T. (1999) The implications of information
technology infrastructure for business process redesign. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 159-82.
Cheverst, K., Mitchell, K., Davies, N. (2002) Exploring context-aware information push. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(4), pp. 276-81.
Chong, W., and Low, S. (2006) Latent building defects: Causes and design strategies to prevent
them. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(3), pp. 213-22.
Eastman, C. M., Jeong, Y. S., Sacks, R., Kaner, I. (2010) Exchange model and exchange object
concepts for implementation of national BIM standards. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
24(1), pp. 25-34.
Eastman, C. M., and Siabiris, A. (1995) Generic building product model incorporating building type
information. Automation in Construction, 3(4), pp. 283-304.
Eastman, C. M. (1981) Database facilities for engineering design. Proceedings of the IEEE, 69(10),
pp. 1249-63.
Fischer, M. (2006) Formalizing construction knowledge for concurrent performance-based design.
Intelligent Computing in Engineering and Architecture, 4200, pp. 186-205.
Flager, F., and Haymaker, J. (2007) A comparison of multidisciplinary design, analysis and
optimization processes in the building construction and aerospace industries. CIB 24th W078
Conference, Maribor, Slovenia, pp.625-30.
Flager, F., Welle, B., Bansal, P., Soremekun, G., Haymaker, J. (2009) Multidisciplinary process
integration and design optimization of a classroom building. Electronic Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, 14, pp. 595-612.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2),
pp. 219-45.
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA.
Hartmann, T., Fischer, M., Haymaker, J. (2009) Implementing information systems with project
teams using ethnographic–action research. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(1), pp. 57-67.
Hartmann, T., and Fischer, M. (2007) Supporting the constructability review with 3D/4D models.
Building Research and Information, 35(1), pp. 70-80.
Heesom, D., and Mahdjoubi, L. (2004) Trends of 4D CAD applications for construction planning.
Construction Management and Economics, 22(2), pp. 171-82.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., Ram, S. (2004) Design science in information systems
research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 75-105.
Holz, H., Rostanin, O., Dengel, A., Suzuki, T., Maeda, K., Kanasaki, K. (2006) Task-based process
know-how reuse and proactive information delivery in TaskNavigator. Proceedings of the 15th ACM
International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, ACM, Arlington, VA, USA,
pp.522-31.
24
Hvam, L. (1999) Procedure for building product models. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 15(3), pp. 77-87.
Johansson, P., and Granath, K. (2010) Using construction deficiency reports and product models as
systematic feedback to avoid design errors caused by lack of knowledge. Proceedings of the CIB
W78 2010: 27th International Conference, CIB, Cairo, Egypt, pp.paper 47.
Josephson, P. E., and Hammarlund, Y. (1999) The causes and costs of defects in construction - A
study of seven building projects. Automation in Construction, 8(6), pp. 681-7.
Khanzode, A., Fischer, M., Reed, D. (2008) Benefits and lessons learned of implementing building
virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies for coordination of mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing (MEP) systems on a large healthcare project. Electronic Journal of Information Technology
in Construction, 13, pp. 324-42.
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, 3rd printing Edn.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Laryea, S. (2011) Quality of tender documents: Case studies from the UK. Construction
Management and Economics, 29(3), pp. 275-86.
Losee, R. M. (1997) A discipline independent definition of information. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 48(3), pp. 254-69.
Love, P. E. D., and Li, H. (2000) Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction.
Construction Management and Economics, 18(4), pp. 490.
MacKay, W. E. (1999) Is paper safer? the role of paper flight strips in air traffic control. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 6(4), pp. 311-40.
McGraw-Hill (2009) The business value of BIM - getting building information modeling to the bottom
line. 1st Edn. McGraw-Hill Construction, New York, NY, USA.
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., Sambamurthy, V. (2011) How information management capability
influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), pp. 237-56.
Nomura, S., Hutchins, E., Holder, B. E. (2006) The uses of paper in commercial airline flight
operations. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, ACM, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp.249-58.
Ralph, P., and Wand, Y. (2009) A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. Design
Requirements Engineering, 14, pp. 103-36.
Sacks, R., Kaner, I., Eastman, C. M., Jeong, Y. (2010) The rosewood experiment — building
information modeling and interoperability for architectural precast facades. Automation in
Construction, 19(4), pp. 419-32.
Shea, K., Aish, R., Gourtovaia, M. (2005) Towards integrated performance-driven generative design
tools. Automation in Construction, 14(2), pp. 253-64.
Staub-French, S., Fischer, M., Paulson, B., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., Ishii, K. (2003) A feature ontology
to support construction cost estimating. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing, 17(2), pp. 133-54.
25
Teicholz, P. (1989) Integration of microcomputer applications. current and future approaches.
Proceedings of Construction Congress I - Excellence in the Constructed Project, ASCE, San
Francisco, CA, USA, pp.147-57.
Tilley, P. A., and McFallan, S. L. (2000) Design and documentation quality survey. 1st Edn. CSIRO,
Highett, Victoria, Australia.
Toker, F. (1985) Gothic architecture by remote control: An illustrated building contract of 1340. Art
Bulletin, 67(1), pp. 67-95.
White, S. A., and Miers, D. (2008) BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide, 1st Edn. Future Strategies
Inc., Lighthouse Point, FL, USA.
Yang, W. Z., Xie, S. Q., Ai, Q. S., Zhou, Z. D. (2008) Recent development on product modelling: A
review. International Journal of Production Research, 46(21), pp. 6055-85.
Ye, Y., and Fischer, G. (2002) Supporting reuse by delivering task-relevant and personalized
information. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM,
Orlando, FL, USA, pp.513-23.
Yin, R. K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th Edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
USA.
Zamanian, M. K., and Pittman, J. H. (1999) A software industry perspective on AEC information
models for distributed collaboration. Automation in Construction, 8(3), pp. 237-48.
26