2006 CIFE Technical Report of VDC Case Studies in Finland

Technical Report

Case Studies on the Implementation and Impacts of Virtual Design and Construction

(VDC) in Finland

Ju Gao & Martin Fischer

1

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary..........................................................................................................2

2. Introduction.......................................................................................................................4

2.1 Aim of this study.........................................................................................................4 2.2 Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................4

3. Framework and Case Study Method ..............................................................................6

3.1 A Framework to Describe 3D/4D Modeling ..............................................................6 3.2 Data Collection and Analysis Approach.....................................................................7

4. Case Study Findings .........................................................................................................8

4.1 Context of Implementing 3D/4D Models in Finland..................................................8 4.2 Scenarios of Model Uses ..........................................................................................13 4.3 Key Implementation Factors of 3D/4D Modeling ....................................................20 4.4 Impacts of 3D Modeling: Benefit vs. Effort .............................................................29

5. Next Steps ........................................................................................................................35

6. References........................................................................................................................36

Attachment A ..........................................................................................................................38

Attachment B...........................................................................................................................41

Contact List ...........................................................................................................................41

2

1. Executive Summary

To identify the current situation of implementing virtual design and construction (VDC) in Finland and address its impacts on projects, we conducted cases studies of 3D/4D modeling on eleven Finnish building projects.

Researchers and practitioners have reported the uses of 3D/4D modeling on single projects in Finland. These papers and presentations inform AEC professionals about the benefits realized and obstacles encountered on these projects. However, ad-hoc experiences from individual projects are not sufficient for AEC professionals to draw out implications from one project to another. To gain a grounded understanding of important patterns of 3D/4D modeling across Finnish projects, we studied eleven case projects and conducted over 30 hours of interviews in 12 discussions with owners, developers, architects, structural engineers, building systems engineers, and contractors in Helsinki. We found that Finnish AEC professionals use 3D/4D models in various ways to support the product design, the communication and collaboration between organization and the process integration; and AEC firms in Finland shape the implementation of 3D/4D modeling as they integrate them into everyday practice. Three key points to note are:

• Finnish AEC professionals determine how to use 3D/4D models based on the challenges of facilities, their distinct views as developers, builders, architects, and engineers, and different project phases when 3D/4D models are created.

• Finnish AEC professionals shape the implementation of 3D/4D modeling by taking consideration into both technical and organizational aspects: 1) they factor in the modeled scope, level of detail, data structure, data exchange, software functionality and interoperability; 2) they react to the needed internal or external organizational alignment.

• Three significant benefits of 3D/4D modeling perceived by Finnish AEC professionals are: 1) enhanced design reliability; 2) more efficient change order management; 3) more design effort on value-added tasks.

This report first introduces a framework to document and compare 3D/4D modeling across projects and the research method of multiple case studies. Then it presents an overview of the relevant project and company context where 3D/4D modeling on case projects took place. Afterwards, the report provides findings of implementation patterns grounded in the eleven case studies, including the accommodation of model uses to project characteristics and challenges, the management of 3D/4D CAD data, the customization of software tools and the organizational alignment in terms of teaming and staffing. The research outcomes from this study are not based on generalized discussion on all the cases of 3D/4D modeling in Finland. However, it does demonstrate how Finnish AEC professionals have implemented 3D/4D modeling with evidences from real projects. The last part of the report pinpoints the impacts of 3D/4D modeling, as manifested by the 11 case projects, on the design of the product (building) and on the project organization and processes.

3

We expect that this report will raise awareness of the role that 3D/4D modeling has played in supporting the product design and the project organization and processes on the Finnish building projects. Furthermore, we believe that the identified implementation patterns in Finland would shed light on the topic in question. We also hope this would help other AEC organizations adapt experiences from Finnish projects, streamline the model-based work processes, and add value to their own projects.

4

2. Introduction

2.1 Aim of this study

The capability to model buildings ahead of their physical construction in the computer has improved dramatically over the last few years and will continue to improve. Nevertheless, few project teams avail themselves of the continued and widespread use of virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies to the extent possible and economical today. Bazjanac (2002) pointed out that “practicing professionals, faced with day to day project deadlines, seldom have the time, resources or institutional support to learn modeling in 3D; it will probably first take a new generation of consultants to show industry the benefits of changing the work paradigm, and a new generation of educators to teach future professionals how to do it before object-oriented modeling becomes widespread.” Froese (2002), in his evaluation of the Finnish VERA program, pointed out: 1) the use of 3D object-oriented software in Finnish companies has reached the “early adopters” ; 2) 3D CAD implementation in Finland is in the middle of crossing the “chasm” (Moor 1999) from “early adopters” (a few visionaries)to “early majority” (most pragmatists). Therefore, this study of the current practices of 3D/4D modeling (the principal VDC technologies today) in Finland is aimed at:

• documenting of the practices of 3D/4D modeling and its impacts on Finnish building projects via interviews with different groups of project participants;

• synthesizing the practices of 3D/4D modeling on different projects that have not been brought together before, so as to find out the implementation patterns of 3D/4D modeling in Finland;

• raising awareness of the role that 3D/4D modeling has played in supporting and changing the product design, the project organization, and processes on Finnish building projects.

This study is part of the research project that is funded by the Center for Integrated Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University. The goal of the research is to investigate the implementation and benefits of 3D/4D modeling on a collection of AEC projects. Before this particular study on the 11 projects in Finland, we have completed cases studies on 21 projects in the U.S. and some other part of the world (e.g., East Asia and Scandinavia). We expect the readers of this report are primarily the technical managers and implementers who are interested in learning the current status of 3D/4D modeling in Finland and their knowledge and experience in implementing this state-of-the-art technology.

2.2 Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from CIFE in the Academic Year 2004-2005. We thank CIFE and its member companies for this support. We also acknowledge the Technology Agency of Finland (Tekes) for supporting our case studies on the implementation and impacts of 3D/4D modeling in Finland.

5

The authors of this report wish to thank Dr. Arto Kiviniemi who took the time to help us set up the interviews in Finland and to provide us with his valuable insights.

In particular, we wish to thank those AEC professionals, researchers and organizations in Finland who participated in our case studies, including Mr. Jyrki Iso-Aho (A-KONSULTIT), Mr. Seppo Niemioja (Innovarch), Mr Teemu Toivio (JKMM), Mr. Juha Valjus (Finnmap Consulting), Dr. Miimu Airaksinen (OptiPlan), Mr. Tuomas Laine & Mr. Tero Järvinen (Olof Granlund), Mr. Ari Törrönen (NCC), Ms. Anne Suojoki, Mr. Jukka Hörkkö, & Mr. Sami Heikkilä (Skanska), Ms. Auli Karjalainen & Mr. Tuomo Hahl (Senate Properties), Dr. Jarmo Laitinen & Mr. Jiri Hietanen (TUT), Dr. Stephan Fox (VTT). Without their sharing of time and expertise, this study would not have been possible. These contacts are also listed in Attachment C.

6

3. Framework and Case Study Method

3.1 A Framework to Describe 3D/4D Modeling

Many researchers and practitioners have reported on the use of 3D/4D modeling on single projects in Finland (Kam et al. 2003; Hänninen and Laine 2004; Hänninen 2004; Kokko 2004; Kulusjärvi 2004; Laitinen 2004; Tutti 2004; Wessman 2004; Frausto-Robledo 2005). These examples have informed AEC professionals of the benefits realized and obstacles encountered on individual projects. However, it was difficult to compare the implementation of 3D/4D modeling and discern implementation patterns and general insights because a common vocabulary and structure to describe the implementations did not exist.

Due to the limitation of single-case demonstrations, we need to establish a framework to describe 3D/4D modeling practices objectively, consistently and sufficiently on a project and to allow the comparison of the similarities and differences between 3D/4D modeling and its impacts across project. The goal is to provide AEC professionals with a platform to document 3D/4D modeling experiences and compare them across projects.

Attachment A shows the framework that we have developed for the above purpose. The framework has four main categories. Each category is specialized with several factors. Each factor is described with one or several measures.

The four main categories relate to the main tasks AEC professionals need to carry out when implementing 3D/4D modeling. First, the motivation and incentive of using 3D/4D models on a project is often triggered by situations, challenges, requirements and constraints on a project or within a stakeholder-organization setting. Therefore, implementing 3D/4D modeling is subject to the project-specific or company-specific context (Category A). Second, when planning and implementing 3D/4D modeling (Category B), practitioners need to consider a range of specific implementation factors. Third, after the implementation of 3D/4D modeling, AEC professionals have to evaluate and assess the perceived and quantifiable impacts (categories C and D) during the project run-time and upon its completion.

To document these major tasks in detail, it is necessary to formalize and structure factors within each of the four categories, i.e., context, implementation, perceived impacts, and quantifiable impacts. We organize the context category into two factors: project and organization context. The implementation category characterizes the implementation of 3D/4D modeling with seven factors, i.e., why (modeling uses), when (timing of model uses), who (stakeholder involvement), what (modeled data), with which tools (3D/4D modeling software), how (work flow), and for how much (effort/costs) a 3D/4D modeling implementation was done. The perceived impact category uses three factors, i.e., the impacts of 3D/4D modeling on the Product (i.e., facilities), Organization of the design-construction-operation team, and Work Processes, to describe the professionals’ perception of implementing 3D/4D modeling on a project. The quantifiable impact

7

category groups detailed measures into two factors: performance during the project and final performance upon project completion.

It is also necessary to identify measures that provide supporting and concrete definitions of the factors. We specified 74 measures in the framework. In summary, the framework consists of 4 main categories, 14 factors, and 74 measures.

For this study, we applied the framework to document and compare the implementation and impacts of 3D/4D modeling on the eleven Finnish projects. The framework provided us with a common platform to structure the collected data and look for implementation patterns and general insights.

3.2 Data Collection and Analysis Approach

The data collection effort for this report took place in May 2005. Ju spent two and a half weeks in Helsinki, Finland collecting data. Ju conducted over 30 hours of interviews in 12 discussions with owners (2 interviewees), architects (3 interviewees), structural engineers (2 interviewees), building systems engineers (3 interviewees), contractors/developers (5 interviewees), and modeling consultants (2 interviewees). Among these interviewees, 7 are R&D managers (who are typically referred to as the “CAD manager” or “CAD director” in the U.S.), 5 are licensed practicing professionals (architects and engineers), 3 are project managers, and 2 are independent consultants. By using these multiple sources of information, we hope to increase the validity of our findings.

The data collection protocol we used is a list of questions originally designed by the Virtual Builders Roundtable 1(VBR) for interviews with professionals who have worked with the implementation on construction projects. Two sources of evidence, available documentation and interviews provided empirical data for the case studies.

In all cases, we focused the interview discussion on specific project experiences. These interviews assumed an open-end and conversational manner, which allowed inquiry about specific facts and solicited interviewees’ opinions. Whenever possible, we requested company brochures, screen shots of 3D/4D models, work flow diagrams, etc., which helped us become more familiar with the implementation of 3D/4D models on the case projects.

After data collection, we transcribed every interview conversation from notes and tape recording and then wrote case narratives for the eleven projects. We carried out data coding by assembling/sub-clustering words or break sentences into segments.

1 In 2001, the Virtual Builders Roundtable (VBR) was launched by virtual building practitioners as a forum for sharing practical information about virtual building experiences.

8

4. Case Study Findings

This study involves 11 building construction projects (Table 1). Implementation of 3D/4D modeling on these projects was fairly recent from 2001 to 2005.

Table 1: An Overview of Case Projects

Type of Project

Delivery Methods

Project Size Case

# Case Projects

CF IF RF DBB DB S M

1 A-KONSULTIT’s Town-planning Project √ √ √

2 Mamselli Low-rise Housing Project √ √ √

3 Headquarter Building for NCC-Finland √ √ √

4 NCC’s Tali Apartment Building Project √ √ √

5 YIT’s Office Building Project in Oulu √ √ √

6 YIT’s Semi-detached Houses in Kerava √ √ √

7 Skanska’s Koskelantie 22-24 Residential Renovation √ √ √

8 Skanska’s Vantaan Silkinkulma Apartment Building √ √ √

9 Skanska”s Vantann Ankkahovi Apartment Building √ √ √

10 Pfizer, Scandinavian Headquarter Building √ √ √

11 Aurora 2 University Building in Joensuu √ √ √

LEGEND

CF Commercial Facilities (e.g., office & retail complexes) IF Institutional Facilities (e.g., university facility) RF Residential Facilities (e.g., apartment buildings, houses) DBB Design-Bid-Build DB Design-Build S Small (=< $ 5 million) M Medium ($ 5 – 100 million)

4.1 Context of Implementing 3D/4D Models in Finland

The uses of 3D/4D models cannot be detached from its implementation environment, i.e., the relevant background of a project and the particular context in a company.

9

Institutional9%

Commercial27%

Residential 64%

4.1.1 Project characteristics of Implementing 3D/4D Modeling

• Type of Facility

Seven out of the eleven cases (cases 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) we studied are residential projects (Figure 1).

Apartment57%

Semi-detached house29%

Single-family house

0%

Town-planing project14%

Figure 1: Distribution of cases by their project types

Why is 3D/4D modeling used so frequently on residential projects in Finland? We found the following explanations.

1. Architects’ point of view

• The residential sector is a highly competitive marketplace that asks for high-quality building products to satisfy consumers’ needs. Designing residential projects in 3D models enables not only precise representation of the area, sizes and layout but also the possibility to get more computer interpretable information such as exact quantities.

• The residential market is constantly changing and end-users for a project can shift during the marketing and pre-construction phases. Designing residential projects in 3D models facilitates changes of the suite mix, layout, etc.

• On small housing projects, the profit margin is vulnerable to risks. Therefore one motivation of using 3D models in the architectural firm is to make the design process more efficient. For example, architects can reuse the house types that have already been modeled and update any modification of the basic plan in all views.

• Financial and time constraints prevent architects specializing in residential projects from creating physical models. 3D modeling allows architects to explore more design options.

2. Developer-Builders’ point of view (In Finland, many builders are also real estate project developers. )

10

• 3D-visualization supports marketing and sales of housing projects • There is little tolerance for misdirection in design, pricing, scheduling, or

execution. Therefore, developer/builders can use 3D/4D models to improve the quality of a building product, the accuracy of cost estimation, the efficiency of procurement and logistics.

• Type of Contract

Seven out of the eleven B cases (cases 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) we have studied are design-build projects and the rest are design-bid-build projects (Figure 2). We found that the use of 3D/4D models on design-build projects is contractor-driven while the use of 3D/4D models on design-bid-build projects is owner-driven.

On the projects that are under the design-bid-build contracts, the owners has taken the initiative to implement 3D/4D modeling because they are interested in the benefits which are paid back later in the design and construction process. For example, 3D models enable more accurate cost estimations in early phases, and thus better cost control (cases 1 and 7) as well as the long-term benefits of model-based facility management (cases 10 and 11).

Developer-builders are also the main driving force behind design-build projects. They often assume a leading role in a design-build project and hire or affiliate with an architect as part of a design-build team. Thus, they would like to use 3D/4D models to support communication and collaboration within the design-build team.

4.1.2 Company Profile of Implementing 3D/4D Modeling

We noticed that most Finnish AEC firms, in the transition period from “early adopters” (a few visionaries)to “early majority” (most pragmatists), have in-house research and development (R & D) that strive to adapt the modeling technology to their respective company’s setting and improve their current practices to realize their vision (Table 2).

11

Table 2: In-house research and development is intended to promote the current status of 3D/4D modeling practices to meet a company’s vision

Role in Project

Company Name Vision Research and Development Practices (Current Status)

A-KONSULTIT (Case 1)

• Internal process improvement

• Customer satisfaction

• Geometric Description Language (GDL) library parts

• MySQL® database for drawing management

• Virtual Reality (VR)

• Design in 3D CAD on housing and town-planning projects since late eighties

Innovarch (Case 2)

• High quality design • Customer satisfaction

• ProIT – product model-based data management

• Tested Pro-IT ideas on 2 housing projects

Architect

JKMM (Case 11)

• Shifting from using purely 3D visualization models to data-driven 3D models for design analysis and cost estimation

• They are involved in the Aurora project (Senate Properties) and thus part of a R&D project as well.

• Model-based design of Aurora 2

Finnmap (Case 11)

• N/A • They are involved in the Aurora project (Senate Properties) and thus part of a R&D project as well.

• They are participating in the VBE II project (Virtual Building Environments).

• Implemented 3D modeling for almost 10 years

• 100% of their steel structure design on big projects is carried out with 3D modeling

• Started 3D modeling for some concrete structure design about 2 years ago

Engineer

Granlund (Cases 10, 11)

• Offering customers a reliable foundation for decision-making during a project’s life cycle

• Environmental and sustainable buildings

• Integrated software tool • International partnerships • Energy research • VBE II

• Introduced the first product model based simulation tools in 1997

• Adopted IFC-compliant modeling standard in 1999,

• Built its 500th model in 2004 • 3D modeling and simulation has

become the standard way of working

Design-builder/ Developer

NCC (& OptiPlan) (Cases 3, 4)

• Integration of design and production

• A team-based business process via model-based information management

• Development of building product libraries that allow easy storage of the parts’ specifications details, materials needed, additional data (such as price, availability, etc) if needed.

• Definitions of data flow and interfaces

• Information exchange procedures between partners

• PREMISS, VBE II

• Started 3D modeling in 2003

12

Role in Project

Company Name Vision Research and Development Practice

YIT (Cases 5, 6)

• A pioneer of the product model technology worldwide

• Upgrade of products and services with the aid of newest technology

• COVE (Cost and Value Engineering)and TARMO (YIT's cost estimation database) was developed in 1999 and commercialized in 2004

• Networking with leading companies and research institutes and collaborating in a number of national and international research programs, e.g., Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software (BLIS), International Break-through In product modeling Systems (IBIS), Product Model Extension for Requirement Management Interfaces (PREMISS)

• Applied COVE on more than 200 projects since 1999

• YIT’s units in the cities of Hameenlinna and Oulu are the first to move over to the product model based practices. In Oulu, over 80 projects have been estimated in 3D models. In Hameenlinna, about 90 projects have been estimated with 3D models.

Contractor/Developer

Skanska (Cases 7, 8, 9)

• Widespread use of 3D models within the whole organization so as to improve productivity and increase profit (15-20 % savings in procurement and subcontracting)

• Focus on using 3D models for information management and customer service.

• Product modeling for 100% of its housing projects.

• using product modeling in all life-cycle phases; and developing ICT-platform for supply chain management

• standardization of the recipe for default structural types and building products

• PREMISS, VBE II

• Created 3D models for about 40% percent of its design-build housing project

• Skanska’s unit in Vantaan has trained over 10 architectural offices to use 3D modeling for quantity takeoff. They have carried out 20 pilot tests and implemented 3D modeling on 30 projects. Over 20 people in Vantaan are involved in implementation and development.

• It has been profitable for Skanska’s renovation unit to use 3D models on their pilot projects. This is one of the driving forces to adopt product modeling in this unit.

Furthermore, from the Table 2, we found that these companies are following two kinds of different implementation strategies, i.e., the top-down approach (from company-wide research and development to project-based use of 3D/4D models) and bottom-up approach (from project-based use of 3D/4D models to company-wide research and development).

For example, YIT started 3D/4D modeling in 1999. Since then, it has focused on developing its own software products to support business functions at the firm level and testing and implementing those technical solutions on their projects. This approach has gained high level commitment from some project managers in the cities of Hameenlinna

13

and Oulu and led to a significant leap in productivity. However, to achieve this commitment from all the project managers from within YIT’s units is difficult because the solutions are not developed with the project managers. This is the problem YIT is facing now. While Skanska and NCC started 3D modeling late in 2003 and have to catch up by first using the off-the-shelf software on pilot projects and then developing auxiliary software/interfaces to solve the technical problems that have emerged from practices. This approach allows project managers to participate in developing and deploying technologies and thus feel that it is “their achievement” and commit to implementing changes.

4.2 Scenarios of Model Uses

Table 3 demonstrates: 1) the implementation of 3D/4D models on a Finnish project often starts from the schematic design; 2) the modeling process often involves several parties, e.g., developer-builders, architects, structural engineers, HVAC and electrical engineers; 3) the primary uses of 3D/4D models include design simulation and engineering analysis, cost estimating and control, procurement, construction schedule planning and control, etc.

We found that Finnish AEC professionals determine how to use 3D/4D models based on their distinct views as developer-builders, architects, and engineers, the challenges of facilities, and different project phases when 3D/4D models are created.

Use of 3D Models

1. Developer’s perspective

In most cases (cases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) where 3D modeling was initiated and led by developer, e.g., YIT, SKANSKA, NCC, etc., the projects were mainly apartment buildings and some office buildings.

Real estate developers have relative high sensitivity to “time to revenue.” According to the typical real estate development process in Finland, developers cannot start the marketing until they receive the sign-off from SCHEMA (the city planning authority who enforces the city building codes). Therefore, from 3D models, developers can produce documents that define a project’s scope of work well. In addition, they can use the visualization power of 3D models to persuade SCHEMA and accelerate the turnaround of the building permit approval.

14

Model Functions Types of Models MF0 MF1 MF2 MF3 MF4 MF5 MF6 MF7 MF8

Requirements Model 11 O CP 1 A SD 1 A DD 1 A CD 2 A SD 2 A SD 2 A CD 3 A SD 3 A CD 4 A SD 4 A CD 5 D/B PC 6 A SD 7 A SD 7 D/B SD 7 A CD 8 A SD 8 A DD 8 A CD 9 A SD 9 A DD 9 A CD 10 BSE SD 10 BSE SD

Architectural Model

11 A SD 11 A DD 11 A CD 2 SE DD 2 SE CD 3 SE DD 3 SE CD 4 SE DD 4 SE CD 5 D/B PC 6 D/B PC

Structural Model

11 SE SD 11 SE DD 11 SE CD 2 BSE DD 2 BSE CD 3 BSE DD 3 BSE CD 4 BSE DD 4 BSE CD 7 BSE DD 7 BSE CD 8 BSE DD 8 BSE CD 9 BSE DD 9 BSE CD 10 BSE DD 10 BSE DD 10 BSE CD

HVAC Model

11 BSE DD 11 BSE DD 11 BSE CD 3 BSE DD 4 BSE DD 4 BSE CD 9 BSE DD 10 BSE DD 10 BSE DD 10 BSE CD

Electrical Model

11 BSE DD 11 BSE DD 11 BSE CD 10 BSE DD 10 BSE DD

Design M

odel

Lighting Model 11 BSE DD 11 BSE DD 2 EC DD 3 A&SE DD 3 D/B PC&C 3 D/B PC 4 D/B DD 4 D/B PC 5 D/B PC&C 6 D/B PC&C 10 A&BSE DD 7 D/B SD&PC 7 D/B DD 7 D/B PC 8 D/B DD 8 D/B PC 8 D/B DD 8 D/B PC 9 D/B DD 9 D/B PC 9 D/B DD 9 D/B PC

Production Model

11 ALL DD 11 GC SD&PC 11 SE&GC PC&C 11 SE&GC PC 10 BSE&O O&M

FM Model 11 BSE&O O&M

LEGEND • Model Function MF0: Establishment of design targets MF1: Visualization/Marketing MF2: Simulation and analysis MF3: Design checking (system design coordination or constructability checking) MF4: Construction drawings and schedules/ bill of material (BOM) MF5: Quantity takeoff and cost estimation MF6: Supply chain management/ Building product procurement MF7: Construction planning/ 4D modeling MF8: Facility management • Stakeholder O: Owner A: Architect SE: Structural Engineer BSE: Building Systems Engineer D-B: Developer-Builder GC: General Contractor EC: External Consultant • Project Phase CP: Conceptual Planning SD: Schematic Design DD: Design Development CD: Construction Documents PC: Pre-Construction C: Construction O&M: Operation and Maintenance

Table3: The eight different kinds of BIM uses (model functions), as manifested by case projects, are related to the perspectives of stakeholders who built or used models and project phases when models are created and used

15

After the approval of the building permits, developers also use 3D architectural models as marketing and sales aids. Most developers produce 3-D images and brochures to show homebuyers what the various home alternatives will look like. In addition, some developers set up project website; and customers are able to compare different finishing materials and alternative layouts and their effect on prices. For example, NCC had a project website for the Tali Project (Case 4). Potential house owners were able to log into the website and visualize the space in three dimensions. On YIT’s apartment building projects, it was even possible for a customer to choose between standard style selection and an individually customized combination by modifying furnishings and surface materials in real time.

2. Builder’s perspective

Builders use the architectural, structural, HVAC or electrical models created by the designers as bases for their production models. The form "production model" refers to the kind of model where the 3D components are arranged for the purposes of design checking/ constructability review, cost estimation/control, supply chain management and construction planning. To serve the above modeling purposes, builders use 3D/4D models in the following ways.

The purpose of using production models for design checking (cases 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11) is to combine the 3D models of multiple disciplines and check for constructability so that builder’s know-how can be utilized before the construction starts.

The purpose of using production models for quantity takeoff and cost estimation includes three aspects:

a) In the schematic design phase, production models provide a way to obtain budget price from the architect’s space-lay-out model in just a few hours. The builders prepare gross square feet estimate and volume take-off early in the project’s life and compare them to the developer’s cost target. This ensures that architect have sized the project and selected materials within the budget of the developer. In addition, the architects are able to review the impact of their decision on the project cost, which facilitates sound decision-making and flexibility for design changes (as shown by case 7 and 11).

b) During the pre-construction and bidding phase, builders extract quantity information of the product based items in construction documents (as shown by cases 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11). General contractors also send accurate material lists to subcontractors and acquire subcontractors’ pricing. In doing so, they are less likely to overpay or underpay subcontractors because they can define the scope of work accurately in a 3D model.

c) If the tenants want to modify layout after construction has started, builders use 3D models to debrief what kind of material or how much quantity has been changed, precisely estimate the cost effect of these change orders, and promptly provide the above information to construction sites (as demonstrated by cases 5 and 6).

16

The purpose of using production models for supply chain management is twofold:

a) In the design development phase, it is possible for builders to integrate standard building products so that more off-site prefabrication and assembling will be available. These building products will appear in the schedule with the precise style and specifications for manufacturing. To support the quality assurance in the procurement/supply chain management, Skanska (cases 7, 8, and 9) provided the architect with product component libraries (e.g., windows, doors, etc.) that have been created by manufacturers who are specified suppliers/partners of Skanska.

b) In the pre-construction and construction phases, builders use 3D models to control the logistics of engineering, manufacturing and construction on commercial buildings that have a large amount of prefab members. On case 3, the 3D model was used to synchronize scheduling information between the designer, the pre-cast concrete supplier and the worksite erector. Project managers worked directly with the 3D model. They assigned parts of the project to different organizations (e.g., engineer, fabricator and contractor). They also colored the 3D components according to different phases concerning which elements have been planned, which ones are in pre-fabrication and which ones are work-in-place and then following up the status of these parts. Based on the 3D model, project managers also produced a logistics report for prefab components so as to check the red flag that signals the risk of engineering and production delay.

3. Designer’s perspective

The projects (e.g., case 1) where 3D modeling is initiated and led by the architects are mainly semi-detached houses or town-planning projects. In such cases, architects used 3D models mainly for their own design purposes. The 3D architectural model was not used for cross-disciplinary collaboration because other project team members were still using 2D CAD.

The cases (e.g., case 10) where 3D modeling was initiated and led by building systems engineers are typically “intelligent” buildings that often involve high technology to ensure the functioning of 1) energy efficiency, 2) life safety systems, 3) telecommunications systems and 4) workplace automation.

Structural engineers have been involved in using 3D models on large commercial or institutional projects (cases 3 and 11) that have a large amount of pre-cast members.

In all the cases we studied, the uses of 3D architectural, structural, HVAC and electrical models include: 1) taking advantage of the visualization power to support client briefing; 2) producing the construction documents (plans, sections, elevations, schedules, etc.) for clients and builders mainly on paper or in PDF-format, or for other designers mainly in a dwg-file format. Moreover some cases, not yet all, witness the use of 3D models for design analysis or the discrepancy checking with respect to design coordination.

17

• Designer’s use of 3D models for analysis of design solutions o Architect’s use of 3D models for analysis of design solutions

For architectural design simulation, architects can focus on the whole project layout or the close-up of a concept.

In the schematic design phase, as shown by case 3, there were five project massing models that represented five schematic design alternatives. 3D modeling enabled the architects to develop multiple layout alternatives early on and was an effective tool to support decision-making.

In the design development phase, architects often simulate the localized design (e.g., different kitchen designs or furniture alternatives) by creating GDL library parts, creating modules for repeated building components, or using manufacturers’ libraries of building products.

a) For example, in cases 1 and 11, architects programmed their own GDL library parts (e.g., furniture or lighting fixtures, etc.), particularly those that are not yet available from manufacturers. The parametric objects contain the information such as geometry, style, material. The change of the function and behavior of the product is easy through the update of parameters in the GDL objects.

b) Modules can be also useful for exploring different options in a design. For instance, in cases 8 and 9, architects first used modules to model repeated groups of elements, e.g., apartment units and toilet rooms, then examined alternative furnishing solutions and surface materials for apartment units or bathroom fixtures in toilet rooms.

c) Also on cases 8 and 9, catalogs of products (e.g., FENESTRA’s window library or ARK-Furniture libraries) were available online. Architects were able to view the catalogs online and insert the objects into their design directly from the webpage. Thus architects compared and selected building components by viewing what different types of products looked like in the virtual building.

o Structural engineer’s use of 3D models for analysis of design solutions

In the schematic design phase, structural engineers normally use the architect’s model as a base to make strength calculations for the preliminary framing plan, evaluate the appropriateness of the architectural design and compare different options for the structural frame. They often start their own 3D modeling later. However, in case 11, the structural engineers started 3D structural modeling for a number of alternate structures and combinations of materials early in the schematic design phase. For example, they modeled three alternatives for foundation beams, i.e., steel, pre-cast concrete (selected) and cast-in-place concrete. Structural engineers then evaluated these options to meet the criteria with regard to the architectural appearance, material costs based on the bill of material (BOM) and the contractor’s specialization and expertise.

o Building systems designer’s use of 3D models for analysis of design solutions

18

Cases 10 and 11) demonstrated that the model-based building system design has three phases.

a) At the early stage of schematic design phase (before the investment decision is made), the building system designers conduct a computerized analysis of 3D spatial model before starting the technical design and model the actual building systems. They firstly simulate the architectural space model so as to compare the architects’ concepts, set realistic targets for building services design and support the client’s investment decision before the start of technical design (Hänninen & Laine 2004). Afterwards, they start to build the actual HVAC and electrical model and add on technical details in the design development phase when the system specification is in place and the best solution of the MEP systems has been already chosen.

b) In the late schematic design phase, building systems designers set up the preliminary sizing of heating, cooling and ventilation systems according to thermal comfort targets.

c) During the course of design development, they detail and model the actual HVAC and electrical system design with MagicCAD, from which they produce the geometry of the ventilation ducts, etc. Afterwards, the engineers analyze the actual building service design from several different points of view: energy-efficiency, indoor comfort conditions, life-cycle costs and environmental impacts. This in turn enables comparisons of building system design solutions and evaluation of their compliance with targets and preliminary technical specifications.

• Designers’ use of 3D models for discrepancy checking with respect to design coordination

Different from builders’ design checking that tends to integrate the design models with constructors’ know-how and hence focuses more on detecting constructability issues, designers’ cross-checking is intended to coordinate disciplinary systems and reduce discrepancies between them. Under this circumstance, design checking starts earlier than that carried out by contractors because coordination problems and clashes are dealt with as part of the design process and the need for the checking process by a separate consultant is removed. From the Finnish cases we studied, we found that designers carried out design checking in three different manners.

a) Directly combining the disciplinary models that are created with the same software vendor’s product suite into a full model: In case 3, architects and engineers worked together and took advantage of the combined architectural (created with Bentley Architecture) and structural model (created with Bentley TriForma) in MicroStation. The architectural and structural design team prepared the 3D model following the necessary disciplined procedures. For example, to ensure dimensional integrity, the architectural and structural models were based on the same coordinate system, origin, orientation and units of measurement. Because of the same shared platform and database within the same software

19

vendor’s product suite, architects and engineers worked on their design more efficiently. In meantime, they performed interference checking between architectural components and structural members.

b) Adding system components of one model as library parts to another model: In case 10, those components of the mechanical system are simply added in architects’ model as objects or library parts in ArchiCAD. Conflicts between disciplines were discovered either by the 3D parametric model itself or by architects’ manual checking in the 2D environment.

c) Coordinating parts of disciplinary models in third-party software that functions as the common platform: In case 11, structural engineers needed to get 3D geometry information of pipes from the HVAC model so that they were able to check if all the piping penetration holes in the right places related to the location of structural members. Because the structural engineer’s modeling tool did not talk directly with the building systems designer’s software, the structural engineer had to combine the structural model with the piping part of the HVAC model in NavisWorks for the purpose of model checking.

4. Owner’s perspective

The cases where 3D modeling was initiated and led by owners in Finland are projects of Senate Properties (e.g., case 11).

Owners are interested in using model-based analysis in the conceptual planning phase to establish challenging but realistic targets so as to support investment decision-making. 3D models support the target (functional requirements for design) establishment in two ways. First, the energy, cost and environmental targets that are set up through simulation are more realistic and project specific than those based on statistical data. Second, model-based analysis takes into account the interrelationship between the energy, cost and environmental targets, which avoids the situation where optimizing the outcome for a subsystem in general does not optimize the outcome for the system as a whole.

They also pay a lot of attention to using 3D models for facility management. For example, in one way, they use the architectural geometry model to study better solutions of spaces for the client and opportunities to change functions in the future. In the other way, they intend to pass data from IFC-compliant building services design model on to the FM database so that the data can be reused in the operational phase to achieve better building performance and life-cycle costs.

Use of 4D models

1. Contractor’s perspective

In Finland, Line of Balance (LOB) scheduling is used on a lot of construction projects. Schedulers have been accustomed to LOB and resource-driven scheduling. YIT has tried 4D modeling on some housing projects, but found that the current version of 4D software did not support resource scheduling well. Therefore, they are considering using 4D

20

model as a communication tool on some complex projects for the purpose of client briefing.

On the NCC Headquarter Building (case 3), NCC used the 4D model to simulate two schedule options for construction of the pre-cast concrete frame. Scheduling of the rest of the project was still carried out in typical resource-based scheduling software, i.e., DYNAProject and Planet from which they got quantity information. The 4D model used by NCC was intended for the three-week-look-ahead planning for a worksite. This 4D model was a lightweight model derived from a detailed 3D structural model. It did not include screws and bolts other than the accurate representation of the structural frame components. However, this 4D model was not fit for the daily production planning of the design and manufacture of pre-cast concrete members, the delivery of materials and worksite installation controls. Due to this fact, the supply chain management was done with the L.O.B scheduling method although the quantity and location data was actually extracted from the 3D structural model.

2. Structural Engineer’s perspective

Finnmap tends to use 3D and 4D models on the big projects with demanding structures. Projects of this kind usually have long-span structures or complicated connection details, which demands top know-how and excellent tools to ensure precise engineering and detailing, the proper functioning of the structure and the easy visualization of the structural complexity. Finnmap sees significant benefits from using 4D models on their projects. In Finland, structural designers are also at the building site throughout the project. With 4D modeling, the benefits are mainly due to improved communication making it possible to get other necessary people, e.g., subcontractors, material suppliers and representatives of client, involved in schedule preparation and analysis (Leinonen et al. 2003).

3. Building Systems Designer’s perspective

At the current stage, building systems designers do not see many benefits of 4D modeling for them. They want to visualize not only where and when the physical product (MEP systems) is installed but also how the various resources (such as materials, equipments, etc.) interact. However, the current schedule, representing the construction tasks necessary for project level planning, misses the details of MEP installation at the operations level, such as the workspace needed for each activity and the relationship between the production rates of different subcontractors.

4.3 Key Implementation Factors of 3D/4D Modeling

Our case studies show that the implementation pattern of 3D/4D modeling process rest upon three key controllable factors, i.e., data, CAD software tools, and organizational alignment of work flow and teaming.

21

4.3.1 Implementation with respect to data and tools Our case studies show how Finnish AEC professionals factor the modeled scope, level of detail, data structure, data exchange, software functionality and interoperability into the technical aspect of implementation.

• Modeled Scope

Regarding modeled scope of work, our case studies show that:

1. Architectural system is modeled all the time, but the modeled scope of work within the architectural system is dependent on the facility type.

On town-planning projects (as shown by case 1), the houses and the site are modeled by using 3D building components and library parts. However, on apartment building projects (as shown by cases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), the scope of the architectural model only includes the building without any site information. On renovation projects (as shown by case 7), the architectural model need to contain both existing conditions and new construction. This provides the designers with a more accurate understanding of the existing building, which is crucial for efficient execution of renovation projects where all changes and additions to the existing structure should be fully coordinated.

2. Except for the architectural system, what else is included in the modeled scope is contingent on the type of project and the modeling purposes.

Modeling of the structural system including the frame and connections is quite common for the purpose of supply chain management on large and complex commercial or institutional projects that have a large amount of prefab members (as shown by cases 3 and 11) . Some of our interviewees think that it is ideal but not a must to model the structural system for apartment building projects. The reasons are as follows:

a) Most residential projects in Finland are concrete structures. Tekla Structures’s 3D modeling tool for concrete structures just came on the market in 2004. Most structural engineers in Finland are not yet proficient in creating 3D concrete-structural models.

b) The architectural model has incorporated basic structural elements (bearing-walls and hollow core slabs) as library parts.

c) For the purpose of cost estimating and construction planning at a component level, the architectural model is sufficient to provide quantity and location information. A structural model that accurately represents member sizes and connection details is more applicable for shop drawing preparation and fabrication control.

For the purpose of clash detection and design coordination, mechanical and plumbing systems are always modeled. However, this is not the case for electrical system. The reasons are as follows:

22

a) Most electrical design firms in Finland are small-scale companies that do not have the capacity for 3D modeling.

b) In the traditional process of shop drawing coordination between disciplines, the mechanical and plumbing subcontractor is always the first to lay its equipment and product. And the electrical conduits and panels have a high tolerance for movement. Therefore, for the purpose of interference detection, it is not critical to include the electrical system.

• Level of Detail

Our case studies show that the level of detail (or the degree of representation accuracy) in 3D models corresponds to the modeling purpose, evolves as the project proceeds and are affected by the functionality of software tools.

1. The level of detail in 3D models corresponds to the modeling purpose.

The 3D architectural model in case 4 was accurate so as to convince SCHEMA (the city planning authority). For example, basic door and window types and their actual sizes were specified. However, fully detailed doors and windows were not developed by the architect at that time.

2. The level of detail in 3D models is subject to the information available at different design stages.

For example, in case 11, the first version of the structural model (in the schematic design phase) had very rough framing information of the foundation and superstructure: there was no connection between structural components and the slab on each floor was one object. A later version of the structural model (in the design development phase) entailed a lot of details: e.g., some connections readily available from libraries were added to steel members, and the whole slab was divided into multiple hollow core slabs. The latest version of the structural model (in the construction documents phase) includes more details of the structure (beams, columns, plates and bolts) geometry, dimensions, member properties, connection types and materials. According to the technical manager, in the latest model, the 1st and 2nd floors were almost 100% ready and the 3rd floor was 60% ready for assembly drawings (shop drawings) that need to be sent to the fabricator. Although this model presented a fair degree of accuracy and completeness of the information, certain connection types (e.g., the connections between stairs and columns) were still left up to the fabricator.

A risk with a model-based design is that architects try to make a detailed model in the first place. Our cases show a few possible ways to deal with this issue.

a) Case 1 demonstrates that one way is to simplify the 3D model and elaborate the necessary detail with the library parts (GDL Objects) for elements that belong to the same type but have different parameters. In the schematic design phase, instead of elaborately constructing and constantly changing several proposals with

23

actual components like floors/walls/windows, the architects in A-KONSULTIT simulated them with the GDL library parts that entail 5-10 parameters for attributes of a building component. These GDL objects started as a schematic layout tool for managing only the basic geometry and quantities. They gradually developed, during the design development phase, into library parts that contain more than 20 parameters for showing the building components in detail. For example, a window might have parameters that define its height, width, number of panes, material and frame style. A wall might contain parameters that define its composition, surface, finish, height, and construction to other walls, columns, floors and ceilings.

b) In case 11, when JKMM’s architects started to model the building elements, they used default settings for objects’ type information that could be changed later when required. This allowed the architects to focus on the design and its modeling, without being burdened by specifying type information until necessary. Once the basic building form was finalized, they enriched the conceptual 3D model by adding the detailed forms of components and specifying type information.

3. The level of detail in 3D models might be affected by the functionality of software tools:

a) 3D modeling software tools can assist in balancing out the accuracy that is missing from the 3D model. In cases 5 and 6, 3D models, intended for quantity take-off and cost estimation, did not precisely represent each connection (e.g. the connection between the bearing wall and hollow core slab) or all the components in an assembly/module (e.g., the ceiling/tile finish and furniture in a kitchen, or the siding, frame, insulation within a wall composition). However, modelers took advantage of the “calculation rules” that describe the different quantities for different element types and how to perform these calculations. In doing so, modelers took care of the details without the need to really modeling them. The rules are attached to assembly attributes and assist in the automatic creation of new information (Laitinen 1998). .

b) Some missing software functions might handicap the exact representation of the required accuracy. For example, as in cases 5 and 6, in order to calculate the number of hollow core slabs, some detail (e.g., the horizontal, vertical, or sloping orientation of hollow core slabs) had to be modeled exactly. But there was no way to present the sloping slab via the slab tool in ArchiCAD. So, for the purpose of cost estimating, it was not a good solution to model the sloping slab by using the sloping roof tool because the type of an object had to be specified correctly and accurately. However, if the model were just used for visualization, the slab would be approximated by a similar-looking object of different type. In addition, in case 11, the architects compromised the accuracy of organic modeling or freeform design (i.e., non-rectangular, fluid forms) as many freeform objects were not readily available and could not be created precisely with ArchiCAD. Although the 3D objects in the architect’s model could not precisely represent the real freeform entities, the architects attached the exactly correct parameters (e.g.,

24

material type and configuration information) to those 3D objects so that the level of detail is appropriate for engineers or contractors to fulfill their tasks.

• Model Structure

An appropriate model structure increases the potential for re-use of a model from project to project and provides much better control of revisions. The 3D models in our cases are basically organized in three ways, i.e., a model split into sub-models (as shown by cases 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9), a model (or a sub-model) organized by layers in which there is no embedded hierarchy (as shown by cases 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11) or a complete model in which there is a hierarchy embedded (as shown by case 3).

1. A model organized by sub-model files: An architectural model is divided into separate sub-models based on functions, e.g., internal walls, external cladding, cores, apartment units, etc. A structural model is organized in sub-models according to different types of building parts, e.g., pre-cast concrete frame, cast-in-place concrete frame, and prefab steel frame, etc. The HVAC model is also broken into different sub-models based on function, e.g., plumbing, air conditioning, heating, etc. Sub-models not only transform complex systems into functional, manageable modular elements but also maintain their connectivity. For example, bathroom fixtures could be designed separately in one sub-model, and then linked to a sub-model of an apartment unit which was later hot-linked into the building superstructure sub-model. The reasons for dividing a model into several different sub-models are:

a) Sub-models can be used multiple times, thereby reducing the modeling effort; b) The file sizes will not challenge the computer hardware and networks; c) Smaller and simpler models allow the designer to study and design

alternatives; d) Any change made in a sub-model will be automatically reflected in all the

parent-level models that the sub-model is hot-linked into. 2. A model or a sub-model organized by Layers in which there is no embedded

hierarchy: In an architectural model, architectural components are sorted, as layers, by floors/phases and types of building components (case 3), e.g., Phase A-load bearing wall, Phase B-hollow core slab, Phase C-windows, etc. In layers, there is no real hierarchical structure to organize the 3D objects. However, the hierarchy can actually be indicated by the naming conventions for components in a 3D model. In Finland, all the AEC professionals in the building construction sector follow a classification system (Talo 2000 – the Finnish Building 2000) for naming the objects they work with. Space, building components and composites are named and classified according to the classification system in the Finnish Building 2000 specification. Cases 5 and 6 also show another workaround. The 3D model was linked to the cost breakdown structure (CBS) in the company’s internal “know-how” database (called “recipe”). Therefore, the data structure is established through mapping the CBS in the recipe to the 3D model and hence the hierarchy is shown by the naming of this linkage.

3. A complete model in which a hierarchical structure is embedded: The CAD objects in a 3D model are directly decomposed and organized in a hierarchy, i.e., work-

25

breakdown-structure (WBS). For example, the production model in case 2 was built in Enterprixe (a model based web service for modern building projects enabling collaboration and coordination through the building process) and had an embedded WBS that included groups (e.g., formwork, reinforcement, concrete, etc.), elements (e.g., walls and slabs in each group), floors (to break down the element into floors), and phase (to describe the construction zones on each floor).

• Data Exchange

Since controlling the flow of information is a very important reason for the traditional division of professional responsibility, designers should be very careful in how they provide information and how it is used by others. Therefore, Accuracy and control are far more important than the quantity in information management (Guttman 2005). Our case studies demonstrate that the loss of data content/integrity and accuracy is partly due to the problems in software interoperability. In addition, we found that, during the course of data exchange, downstream designers/builders have to make extra effort to reconfigure or reformat data that is viewed differently by upstream designers.

1. Loss of data content, integrity and accuracy because of problems in software interoperability.

For example, in case 1, architects in A-KONSULTIT found that it was not easy to exchange information between ArchiCAD and some 2D CAD programs. In Finland, town-planning authorities in some of the largest cities such as Helsinki and Vantaa use MicroStation. Before creating the terrain model for the project site, architects in A-KONSULTIT obtained the 2D electronic land-use maps and topography maps that were stored as Microstation (*.dgn vector) files. They used the original survey points and contour lines to build the 3D terrain model. However, ArchiCAD was not able to fully read MicroStation DGN files. Parcels or Points could not be transformed into 100% ArchiCAD compatible meshes. Therefore, data integrity was impaired due to loss of precision. The same issue occurred when A-KONSULT exchanged data with landscape architects who used AutoCAD for their landscaping design. Often, architects in A-KONSULT make a lot of efforts to work around these kinds of interoperability issues. However, when the new version of particular software came out, new sets of problems might come up and architects in A-KONSULT have to learn how to get around the difficulties over and again. Moreover, in this case, architects had no other options but to share 2D documents (renderings, plans, sections, etc.) produced from the 3D model with the owner and the extended project team. Therefore, the rich information embedded in GDL library parts and the 3rd dimension was lost in the 2D drawings exchange process.

The loss of data content and accuracy has a ripple effect, i.e., designers have to make extra effort in model checking. For instance, in case 3, the HVAC modeling tool did not supported IFC import but IFC export only. Therefore, the point of departure for the HVAC model was the 2D architectural reference drawings (floor plans and elevation) in stead of the combined architectural and structural 3D model. Because the 3D representation of load bearing walls could not be imported to the HVAC model, HVAC

26

engineers were not able to immediately detect whether a duct has passed through a load-bearing wall. Consequently, the structural engineer had to get 3D piping information back to their structural model so as to check if all the piping penetration holes were in the right places.

Our cases show how designers deal with this issue regarding loss of data content and accuracy.

a) In case 2, the structural engineers used the architect’s model as a basis. The structural engineers had to know about the precision and contents of models delivered to them. Thus architects took a proactive approach (e.g., the architects wrote down a note and transferred it along with their models) to inform structural engineers whether the measurements were appropriate or accurate.

b) In case 11, the owner hired a specialist, who had the technical know-how, to assist the designers in exchanging data. Before a 3D model was transferred from one party to another, the specialist reviewed the model and provided feedback to ensure the data integrity and accuracy partly because some problem was related to the inadequate quality of the IFC implementations in many software products.

2. Extra effort needed to re-create different views of the data in order to make sense to different disciplinary stakeholders.

For example, in case 3, all the pre-cast concrete members in the structural model were remodeled in Enterprixe. The reason was that structural engineers only annotated pre-cast pieces by type without taking account into the location of similar pieces to be assembled; while contractors had to prepare erection sequences by identifying various activities that correspond to different types of pre-cast pieces installed at different floor levels. One spin-off from this remodeling process was that the contractor double-checked the design and hence reduced design errors and ensured its accuracy. However, the downside of this duplicated effort was its lack of efficiency. NCC said that they were fine with this cumbersome remodeling process on that pilot project, but they would not afford to follow this path and use the remodeling approach as a company-wide practice for all of their ongoing 150 projects.

The issue implied a new way of looking at data exchange through downstream pull instead of upstream push. In an “upstream-push” modeling process, the 3D design is from the top down and follows rigidly specified procedures. Downstream designers or builders have to not only wait for upstream designers to push out their models, but also accept all the content within those models. In a “downstream-pull” modeling process, down stream designers or builders pull data into their models as needed. That is to say, the way of exchanging information rests on how it is used by information recipients. For example, on case 11, when the architect’s geometry model was transferred to building system designers, it was not a complete architectural model. For the purpose of energy simulation, what the building system designers needed was the IFC file that includes information of spaces and component type information (e.g., exterior/interior wall and the composite of wall layers). Also for the purpose of facility management, the building

27

system designers provided a HVAC model which only contains components that are needed for maintenance. This case is clearly showing the need for the model servers; the problem cannot be solved in file based exchange. Furthermore, major Finnish AEC companies are attempting to develop guidelines in terms of what decisions have to be made when the project proceeds from one phase to another as well as what kind of information is needed by all parties of a building project - Architectural design - Construction design - HVAC simulation and design - Cost estimation, etc. Not only Finnish companies; the use case definitions are a major effort in the IAI on global level.

4.3.2 Implementation with regard to organization

Our case studies also illustrate how Finnish AEC professional respond to the needed internal changes in an organization’s traditional 2D-based way of working as well as external collaboration among the project players who are participating along the value chain.

• Internal Adjustment

The Finnish AEC organizations’ internal adjustment to 3D modeling process manifests itself in two aspects: 1) change in work assignment; 2) change in design mode.

1. Change in work assignment

For example, in case 1, architects in A-KONSULTIT have been moving towards a systematic way of working and have changed their old way of organizing design teams. In the traditional 2D-based design, they used to assign 5-6 architects to design tasks according to their occurrences in different design phases. For example, one architect was responsible for initial design/sketches and then oversaw the design development; a few others worked on detailing and drafting of varied architectural elements, e.g., windows or stairs, etc. At that time, they had to set up very strict 2D CAD standards so as to ensure consistencies between the specialized design tasks. Nevertheless, now they have a decentralized team with 2-3 architects who are in charge of the whole design process and working with models from the concept to the detailing. They have already started to establish certain modeling standards or guidelines for their internal modeling process. But this time they want to make the standards flexible enough so that architects can not only have certain guidelines or templates to rely on but also handle the modeling the way they would like to (e.g., how to start the project, what to model and to what kind of detail, etc.). The new way of organizing design work provides freedom/flexibility for architects.

Moreover, inside JKMM (case 11), 4 FTE (full time equivalents) did architectural design and modeling, 1 FTE did interior design and worked with modeling. They divided the project into discrete shared sub-models. Their work assignments corresponded to specific zones of responsibility such as various architectural systems (shell, core, interior, ceiling, etc.) or physical features (stories, wings, tenants, etc.). This kind of work assignments enables multiple architects to work on the modeling efficiently.

2. Change in design mode

28

Our case studies show that architects have changed their design mode in a fashion of incremental improvement. That is to say, rather than jumping from the complete 2D mode into the entire 3D mode, architects have begun their work in the combined mode of 2D and 3D design. In this case, the design process entails a high degree of interaction between a 2D plan and a 3D model. Architects work either in a 2D plan or in a 3D model and switch to the other design mode as needed. For example, in case 11, architects started 2D sketches in the first place. Afterwards, they generated 3D space models (massing models) so that they were able to view them at any point for visual feedback and explore multiple design options. Once the basic building form was finalized, they enriched the conceptual 3D model by adding details. Alternatively, they isolated parts of a 3D model to study details in their familiar 2D environment. At that moment, they worked with the 2D representation of this 3D model and dealt with 3D objects that were behind the scene.

• External Collaboration

The inter-organizational adjustment to model-based collaboration manifests itself in three aspects: 1) early involvement of key stakeholders in design process; 2) early agreement on modeling requirements and collaboration mechanism; 3) establishment of partnerships and strategic alliances.

1. Early Involvement of key stakeholders in design process

In most of the Finnish cases (cases 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11), we found that structural engineers and building systems designers have been involved in the early design phase and worked with architects side by side even though only architectural modeling is underway and specialty modeling has not started yet. .

For example, in case 3, although the structural model and HVAC model were generated when the architectural design was almost fixed, structural engineer and HPAC engineers were brought in at the stage of schematic design. In this way, they took advantages of renderings or the quantity and location information from the 3D model for their own analysis. They also reviewed the architectural model and gave feedback with respect to the more complicated systems. For example, the building facade design (e.g., window design, percentage glazing ratio, etc.) has to be evaluated by the HVAC engineer in terms of thermal performance, natural ventilation and daylight. Taking another example, the architect and HVAC engineer worked together to decide how PV solar modules can be incorporated into a high-class office building and fulfill the aesthetic demands.

2. Early consensus on modeling requirements and/or collaboration mechanism

Consensus on modeling specification in the very beginning of a project enables a better control of the modeling process. For example, in case 11, the owner, architect, engineer and general contractor made collective decisions on the best way: 1) to do 3D modeling with respect to the naming convention for 3D objects; 2) to attach needed information to 3D objects from the perspectives of engineers, consultants and contractors; 3) to arrange

29

how to manage and maintain data in terms of who can have simultaneous access to a shared building model and who can do ad-hoc editing of building elements; etc.

For those first-time implementers, due to their lack of modeling expertise, they might not be equipped to set up specific and detailed modeling requirements. Despite that, as shown in case 7, designers and contractors set up a collaboration mechanism early on so that they received more frequent feedback in the modeling process. This emphasizes the need for common modeling guidelines, such as the ones ProIT has developed.

3. Establishment of partnerships and strategic alliances

One of the actions of the major Finnish developer/builders is to build strategic alliances through long-term partnership and relational contracts (repeated business). For example, Skanska has trained over 10 architectural offices to produce the kind of architectural model that can be used in quantity takeoff. Now they attempt to do the same with their subcontractors and suppliers. As shown by cases 8 and 9, Skanska worked with the same HVAC engineer on the two projects. Hence, they can reuse their modeling experiences from the earlier project and hence improve their work efficiency.

4.4 Impacts of 3D Modeling: Benefit vs. Effort

We studied the benefits of varied uses of 3D models on the design of the product (building) and on the project organization and processes for the 11 Finnish case projects, (Table 3). Furthermore, comparing the 11 Finnish case projects to the 21 cases we studied before, we found that Finnish AEC professionals take new perspectives in impacts of 3D modeling.

1. 3D modeling process has improved the quality of design not only by reducing design errors and inconsistencies but also by enhancing design reliability.

BIM affects the quality of the design primarily in two aspects. First, it improves design accuracy and reduces design errors and inconsistencies. Second, it enhances design reliability. Engineers often perceive risks more than real if they rely on the rules of thumb. They tend to over-calculate the risk for most situations that leads to unbalanced design, which in turn increases the project costs. However, when working with BIM (as shown by cases 10 and 11), engineers can test their design virtually, trust the results from the analysis and provide clients with the design that is more reliable and economical.

2. 3D modeling process has improved the performance of managing change orders not only by reducing the number of late design changes but also by facilitating efficient management processes of end-user-initiated change orders in the later phase of a project.

First, 3D modeling process prevents the risk of late design changes that are caused by design errors or inadequate assessment of existing site conditions. In this case, these design changes are the change of work within pre-defined scope. With 3D models,

30

designers make better design decisions with greater confidence and hence avoid many design changes later in the process. The later a change occurs in the design process, the more expensive it becomes because of the number of subsequent drawing changes, and the riskier it becomes because it may not be coordinated among all of the various engineers, consultants, and contractors.

Second, with respect to change orders caused by the owner or end-user-initiated scope changes that oftentimes cannot be prevented, we found, from the 11 Finnish case projects, that 3D modeling also allows for efficient change order management that in turn leads to a low-risk design and construction process. 3D modeling facilitates the risk reduction in the following two aspects.

a) For industrial or institutional projects where end-user groups can be identified at the stage of client briefing, 3D visualization reduces vagueness in scope definition and enables end-users to better understand the project’s scope of work as well as priorities of project goals. In this way, the number of end-user-initiated scope changes can be reduced.

b) On commercial or residential real estate projects, oftentimes it is hard to identify potential tenants and engage them in the very beginning. When tenants change later in the preconstruction or early construction phase, the use of space might change accordingly. When it comes to the unexpected and late scope changes, the automatic model update and drawing production make the drawing changes less cumbersome. Moreover, the model-based quantity take-off and cost estimate are more accurate, which leads to precision of the change order material pricing.

3. 3D modeling process might not reducing design effort in total but it does shift more design effort from contributory work to value-added tasks.

In general, many architects and engineering designers in the U.S. are not that interested in 3D modeling because billable hour is their business. That is to say, they will be paid less due to the reduction of design effort as enabled by BIM. However, in Finland, clients pay designers in a lump-sum fee for the 2D deliverables. Under such a circumstance, 3D modeling offers Finnish designers the opportunity to reduce the total design effort and earn more profits. However, Finnish designers are more interested in take advantage of design-hours saved from model-based drawing production to develop better quality of design work. In this way, they attempt to maximize client satisfaction and hence gain repeated business.

31

Table 3: Observed Benefits on the 11 Case Projects in Finland: impacts of varied model uses on the design of the product (building) and on the project organization and processes

Model Functions Benefits (Product, Process, Organization) Benefits To

Whom Case Example: 11

Product Energy, cost and environmental targets that are set up through simulation are more realistic than those based on statistical data.

MF0: Target Establishment

Process

3D modeling allows evaluation of the design with respect to its ability to meet certain functional requirements at the earlier stage of the project. (Often the design is evaluated against the target when the project is in use; it is too late and expensive to fix defects.)

Owner/Developer

Case Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Product Aesthetically more satisfying product

Process

1) Frequent visualizations allow easy inspection and evaluation of aesthetic and functional characteristics, which accelerate the turnaround of the permit approval so that developers can kick off their marketing effort earlier. 2) Homebuyers are shown what various alternatives will look like. The more information a developer can provide to customers, the more easily they will decide to buy. 3) Architects can use rendered images to check the changes in their design and to support decision making. 4) Different user units/departments can be visualized as blocks in different colors, which support the space-planning task for facility managers at the early stage of a project.

MF1: Visualization/ Marketing

Org.

1) Owners, end users, planning commissions, city councils and the general public find it much easier to have a better understanding of the design. It also keeps them up to date on project developments. 2) End-users have more control to the project and more possibilities to affect on the end results by easy-to-understand visualizations. 3) 3D structural model aids fabricators and contractors in visualizing the intricacy of the frame and connection details.

Owner/DeveloperEnd user Designer

Fabricator Contractor Authorities

Case Examples: 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Product The increased focus on simulation lead to a functionally better product design.

Process

1) The design process becomes more efficient and reliable. Exploration of design alternatives is easier through updating parameters in 3D objects and thus changing the look and behavior of the product. Designers can evaluate more design options when there is less effort involved in making design changes. 2) Simulation of alternatives allows better decision-making. It enables decision-making tasks to meet both schedule and cost requirements of real projects.

MF2: Simulation/ Analysis

Org.

Designers are more confident that their design is correct because the simulation and analysis is based on facts from the accurate 3D models rather than 2D-based design. This is even more important for the owners and end-users; they can understand what they will get.

Owner/DeveloperDesigner

32

Model

Functions Benefits (Product, Process, Organization) Benefits To Whom

Case Examples: 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11

Product

1) The design solution is better for construction because more constructability issues can be detected in 3D models according to the contractor’s know-how before the construction starts. 2) The design solutions among disciplines are less prone to discrepancies because more system clashes can be detected in 3D models.

Process

Combining the structural or HVAC consultants’ 3D-information with the architect’s model makes it easier to check the collisions between separate structures and technical systems.

MF3: Design Checking (system coordination and/or constructability checking)

Org. 3D modeling improves cooperation and communication between designers/contractors because modeling clarifies the data exchanged.

Owner/Developer Designer

Contractor

Case Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Product

1) Construction documents have less design errors and better quality. 2) Drawings are less prone to mistakes and hence prefabrication members that are installed on field are more likely to fit together. 3) Material lists or schedules extracted from 3D models are more accurate so that fabricators or suppliers will not miss the easily overlooked items.

Process

1) Production of construction documents is easier and quicker. 2) Change management is easier. Because each drawing maintains its association with the 3D model and any change in the model automatically updates the drawing, including the dimensions. This leads to savings in time.

MF4: Production of Construction Documents

Org.

1) There is no apparent division between design development and construction documentation (CD). Therefore there are no draftsmen on a project. 2) Architects can control the entire design process for a longer time than that under the traditional 2D circumstance where their involvement stops in the CD phase.

Owner/DeveloperDesigner

Fabricator/supplier

Case Examples: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11

Product

The estimate accuracy (measured by the number of bugs in estimate or the probability of error) is remarkable better with 3D modeling than it is with traditional way because it is based on real quantities. MF5:

Quantity Takeoff & Cost Estimating

Process

1) 3D modeling provides a faster way to obtain budget price from the first sketches in just a few hours. 3) BIM cuts down repeated work and shortens the estimation process for the detailed design 4) Change management is easier. Changes made at the tenants’ request use to take days to be reflected in the drawings. Now simple changes and the estimate of their cost impact can be made in hours. The accuracy of the change order material pricing is also improved.

Owner/DeveloperContractor (GC &

subs)

33

Model

Functions Benefits (Product, Process, Organization) Benefits To Whom

MF5: Quantity Takeoff & Cost Estimating

Org.

1) The estimators are not as busy as they used to be. Estimators can now use man-hours saved to handle more projects or do some other tasks. 2) Foremen do not have to re-calculate and verify the quantities from estimators; they can trust the numbers from the model. 3) The accurate scope definition in 3D model reduces the risks on all levels and that it will save by reducing the time used in conflict resolutions and correcting errors..

Owner/DeveloperContractor (GC &

subs)

Case Examples: 3, 7, 8, 9, 11

MF6: Supply Chain Management

Process

1) The integration of standard building product libraries to the design not only benefits the designer who can design using 3D objects of building parts but also benefits the constructor who can reduce construction cost with more off-site assembling. 2) Engineering lead-time is reduced by streamlining schedule information flows between engineering, fabrication, and erection. 3) It enhances not only the ability of fabricators to respond to design changes (i.e., quicker manufacture turn-around) but also the ability of designers to respond to RFI (i.e., reduced response time for RFI).

Owner/DeveloperDesigner

Fabricator/supplierContractor

Case Examples: 7, 8, 9, 11 MF7: Construction Planning Process

4D modeling enables engineers and contractors to visually follow-up the project and make reports based on the project status, parties involved, comparing dates etc.

Designer Fabricator/supplier

Contractor

Case Examples: 10, 11

Product

Product model based FM system ensures controlled building life cycle costs, trouble-free operation of technical systems in addition to better working conditions for facility maintenance and management personnel.

MF8: Facility Management

Process

1) Product models can be used through the whole building life cycle. Information from design phase and updated during construction by as-built data, can be transferred and re-used also in the operation phase. 2) Performance reporting for management offers facility managers the possibility to steer the project operation (conformity to targets) with the help of understandable performance metrics.

Owner/ Facility Manager

Despite the benefits reported from the cases, we also noticed that time devoted to 3D-based design, compared to the traditional 2D-based design, is not significantly shorter. We found out a few possible explanations for the extra design effort coming along with 3D modeling process.

a) Beyond the efforts to carry out typical design tasks, designers have to make extra effort to structure the model. This extra effort is actually conducive to the architectural design in 3D.

34

b) Sometimes designers, who are working with 3D models, have to address some problems that are often ignored in the traditional design.

c) If software does not have the function to automate certain tasks (e.g., cleanup, design checking, change and update, etc.), designers have to make extra effort to deal with the drudgery manually. Only in doing so, they are able to generate the drawings that are suitable for intended purposes.

d) Sometimes designers still have to double check their design. The check-and-balance process is not eliminated although design in 3D does distinctly reduce design errors. This extra effort is actually valuable in preventing future problems in the prefabrication shop or on the field.

e) The extra design effort is partly due to the lack of a modeling coordinator (or building information manager) who is able to facilitate the modeling work between disciplinary teams.

f) The downstream designers have to create the 3D geometry model themselves because some architects do not use any 3D modeling tools.

g) All participants are still learning the new tools and methods, and the learning process always demands some additional effort.

35

5. Next Steps

Based on the case studies of 3D/4D modeling (spanning from 2001 to 2005) on the eleven Finnish building projects, this report demonstrated the patterns of implementing 3D/4D modeling in Finland. The analysis of the eleven case projects is at the project levels. However, this practical orientation does not extensively address how institutions influence the implementation and impacts, either within or across AEC firms.

Furthermore, when we line up the 11 case projects in Finland with the 16 U.S. projects we have studied, we cannot help thinking whether the implementation differs in the context of the two countries. One argument from the Koivu’s study (2003) on “options for Finnish FM/AEC software packages for market entry in the U.S.” is stated as the following. In Finland, the use of 3D object-oriented software has reached the early adopters; while, at the moment in the U.S., the innovators have had their first attempts to use the technology (Koivu 2003). Although some observation from our case studies concurs with the above argument, we are unsure about how different it is and why it is different. For example, what propels the implementation of 3D/4D modeling in Finnish building industry to such an advanced status? Is it because the Finnish government agencies (e.g, Tekes and the Confederation of Finnish Construction Industry) established proactive policies in the technology research and development? For example, the Vera Program was an investment of 47 M€ from 1997-2002 led by Tekes over 160 projects (http://vera.vtt.fi). It developed some world-class tools, but most importantly it created the awareness of the possibilities of BIM. In addition, in 2002, building information modeling was taken as the core of the strategy of the Confederation of Finnish Construction Industry (http://www.rakennusteollisuus.fi/english), which is representing the construction companies and also material and component industry for construction. Their ProIT-project has pushed things forward after Vera (http://www.vtt.fi/rte/cmp/projects/proit_eng/indexe.htm).

As Orlikowski and Barley (2000) put it: “A world of global networking raises issues of techno-social interdependence whose understanding requires an appreciation for how prior assumptions, norms, values, choices and interactions create conditions for action and how action produce unintended and wide-reaching consequences.” Therefore, for the next step, we will explore the BIM uses and impacts under different country contexts and extend the project level of analysis in this study to incorporate the influences of institutional and global networking. This will help make better sense of the dynamic of the BIM process that demands change and adjustment in different contexts of organizations and countries.

36

6. References

Bazjanac, V (2002). “Early Lessons from Deployment of IFC Compatible Software.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Paper LBNL-51548. 2002

Frausto-Robledo, A (2005) “Helsinki Architects Push BIM Agenda on Mas. Architosh Features.” 2005. http://www.architosh.com/features/2005/firm_profiles/archi/archi-1.html

Froese, T (2002). “Final Program Evaluation Report: VERA – Information Networking in the Construction Process.” Report to Tekes Technology Program. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Guttman, M (2005). “BuildingSMART (get over it). AECbytes Viewpoint #17.” August 9, 2005. http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/issue_17.htm

Hänninen, R. and Laine, T (2004). “Product Models and Life Cycle Data Management.” Olof Granlund Oy at Xth International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. June 02-04, 2004. Bauhaus University, Weimar.

Hänninen, R (2004). “3D-Model-Based Tools for Building Life Cycle Management, Energy and Comfort Simulation, and Environmental Analysis.” Presentation to Finnish FM/AEC Software Day at CIFE, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, March 31, 2004.

Kam, C., Fischer, M., Hänninen, R., Karjalainen, A. and Laitinen, J (2003). “The product model and Fourth Dimension project.” ITCon (Electronic Journal of Information Technol-ogy in Construction) 6:69–81. Vol. 8, Special Issue IFC - Product models for the AEC arena , pp 137-166, http://www.itcon.org/2003/12.

Kokko, P (2004). “Use of Enterprixe Building Product Model Server at the NCC Head Office Project for Logistics Management of Concrete Elements and a real-time on-line demonstration on the use of the Model Server for Project Collaboration.” Presentation to Finnish FM/AEC Software Day at CIFE, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, March 31, 2004.

Koivu, T., Laine, T., Iivonen, V. and Gonzales, D (2003). “Options for the Finnish FM/AEC software packages for market entry in the U.S.” VTT Research Note 2211, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

Kulusjärvi, H (2004) “Use of Solibri's Model Checker, Case Projects of Residential Building and Use of BIM Process.” Presentation to Finnish FM/AEC Software Day at CIFE, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, March 31, 2004.

37

Laitinen, J (1998). “Model Based Construction Process Management.” Ph.D Dissertation of Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Construction Management and Economics

Laitinen, J (2004). “Added Value of Interoperable Tools and Two Case Projects Including a Demonstration of Interoperability.” Presentation to Finnish FM/AEC Software Day at CIFE, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, March 31, 2004.

Leinonen J., Kähkönen K. and Retik A. (2003). New construction management practice based on the virtual reality technology, Raja R.A. et al. (eds.) 4D CAD and Visualization in Construction: Developments and Applications, A.A. Balkema Publishers, 75-85.

Moore, G. A (1999). Crossing the Chasm – marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. Harper Business. New York.

Orlikowski, W. J. and Barley S. R (2000). “Technology and Institutions: What can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other.” The Center for Work, Technology, and Organization, Stanford University.

Tutti, T (2004) “The Arabianranta Case Project, Examples of Tocoman Quantity and Cost Server and Building Information Modeling for Enabling End-user Involvement and Efficient Cost Control.” Presentation to Finnish FM/AEC Software Day at CIFE, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, March 31, 2004.

Wessman, R (2004) “Benefits of Building Information Models and Cases of Model Based Structural Design and Integration from the UK, Australia, USA, and Finland.” Presentation to Finnish FM/AEC Software Day at CIFE, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford, CA, March 31, 2004.

38

Attachment A

Framework of the implementation and impacts of 3D/4D modeling

Categories Factors Measures (See Table 3)

A1 Project Context A1.1 – A1.7

A Context A2 Context of Stakeholder Organization(s) A2.1 – A2.3

B1 Model Uses B1.1 – B1.2 B2 Timing of Model Use B2.1 – B2.2 B3 Stakeholder Involvement B3.1 – B3.9

B4(a) Data: Modeled Scope B4(a).1 B4(b) Data: Model Structure B4(b).1 – B4(b).2 B4(c) Data: Level of Detail B4(c).1 – B4(c).5

B4

B4(d) Data: Data Exchange B4(d).1 – B4(d).3 B5(a) Tools: Software Functionality B5(a).1 – B5(a).4

B5 B5(b) Tools: Software Interoperability B5(b).1 B6 Work Flow B6.1 – B6.5

B Implementation

B7 Effort and Cost B7.1 – B7.2

C1 Perceived Impacts on Product C1.1 – C1.2 C2 Perceived Impacts on Organization C2.1 – C2.2

C Perceived Impacts

C3 Perceived Impacts on Process C3.1 – C3.2

D1 Progress Performance during the Project D1.1 – D1.16 D Quantifiable Impacts on Project Performance

D2 Final Performance upon Project Completion D2.1 – D2.6

39

Measures in the framework

ID Measures A1.1 Type of project A1.2 Contract type A1.3 Contract value vs. value of scope modeled A1.4 Project location A1.5 Project start and completion A1.6 Project size A1.7 Site constraints A2.1 Stakeholder organization’s vision into 3D/4D implementation A2.2 Stakeholder organization’s R&D activities A2.3 Stakeholder organization’s current 3D/4D practices B1.1 Modeling purpose B1.2 Types of model uses B2.1 Project phase(s) when the 3D/4D model was built B2.2 Project phase(s) when the 3D/4D model was used B3.1 Stakeholder organization(s) initiating 3D/4D modeling effort B3.2 Stakeholder organization(s) paying for the 3D/4D model B3.3 Stakeholder organization(s) building/using the 3D/4D model B3.4 Number of individuals building/using the 3D/4D model B3.5 Stakeholder organization(s) reviewing the 3D/4D model B3.6 Number of individuals reviewing the 3D/4D model B3.7 Stakeholder organization(s) owning the 3D/4D model B3.8 Stakeholder organization(s) controlling 3D/4D modeling B3.9 Stakeholder organization(s) influencing on 3D/4D modeling B4(a).1 Modeled scope of project (overall or by disciplinary systems,

e.g., architectural, structural, MEP systems, etc.) B4(b).1 Data structure in the 3D/4D model (layers, hierarchy) B4(b).2 Number of layers or hierarchical levels in the 3D/4D model B4(c).1 Levels of detail in the 3D/4D model B4(c).2 Number of 3D CAD objects in the 3D model vs. 3D CAD

objects in the 4D model B4(c).3 Number of activities in the 4D model B4(c).4 Number of links between 3D CAD objects and activities B4(c).5 Number of design (or schedule) alternatives modeled B4(d).1 Information flow among project participants B4(d).2 Model deliverables for each participating organization B4(d).3 Challenges in the data exchange process B5(a).1 3D/4D modeling software used B5(a).2 Rating of software functions to satisfy the modeling

requirements on a numerical scale B5(a).3 Useful 3D/4D software functionality B5(a).4 Missing 3D/4D software functionality B5(b).1 Challenges in software interoperability B6.1 Work flow of the 3D/4D modeling process B6.2 Number of iterations of the 3D/4D model B6.3 Reasons for iterations of the 3D/4D model B6.4 The best aspects of the 3D/4D modeling process B6.5 Needed improvements in the 3D/4D modeling process B7.1 Time (man-hours) to build the 3D/4D model B7.2 Costs of building the 3D/4D model

40

C1.1 Rating of the impact of the 3D/4D model on building design on a numerical scale

C1.2 Explanation of the impact on product C2.1 Rating of the impact of the 3D/4D model on project

organization on a numerical scale C2.2 Explanation of the impact on project organization C3.1 Rating of the impact of the 3D/4D model on project processes

on a numerical scale C3.2 Explanation of the impact on processes D1.1 Reduced number of deficiency correction notices (rework) D1.2 Increased number of design alternatives D1.3 Enhanced capacity of producing permit drawings, working

drawings, detail drawings (numbers of drawings created from 3D models vs. total numbers of drawings produced )

D1.4 Reduced design effort D1.5 Change in the distribution of design effort D1.6 Increased accuracy of cost estimates (e.g., 95% of cost items

estimated within +/- 2% of variation of final cost) D1.7 Reduced cost estimating effort D1.8 Closeness of bid result D1.9 Reduced turnaround of permitting D1.10 Reduced turnaround of shop-drawing review D1.11 Reduced engineering lead time of material procurement D1.12 Reduced number of field RFIs D1.13 Reduced number (or reduced cost growth) of change orders D1.14 Reduced turnaround of change order processing D1.15 Reduced response latency (reduced time to clarify a problem) D1.16 Increased number of stakeholders engaged D2.1 3D/4D models help define the project scope better D2.2 3D/4D models help improve client satisfaction D2.3 3D/4D models help reduce a project’s first costs D2.4 3D/4D models help reduce a project’s life-cycle costs D2.5 3D/4D models help reduce the time of project execution D2.6 3D/4D models help improve safety performance (lost

workday cases)

41

Attachment B

Contact List

Org. Stakeholder Contact Title E-mail

A-KONSULTIT

Architect Jyrki Iso-Aho Architect [email protected]

Innovarch Architect Seppo Niemioja Partner [email protected]

JKMM Architect Teemu Toivio Architect [email protected]

Finnmap Structural Engineer Juha Valjus Development

Manager [email protected]

OptiPlan Architect & Structural & MEP Engineer

Miimu Airaksinen

Manager of R&D [email protected]

Tuomas Laine

Manager of R&D

[email protected]

Granlund Building Systems Engineer Tero Järvinen HVAC-

Designer [email protected]

NCC GC/Developer Ari Törrönen Development Manager [email protected]

YIT GC/Developer Olli Nummelin

Development Manager [email protected]

Anne Suojoki Project Manager [email protected]

Jukka Hörkkö

Project Manager [email protected] Skanska GC/Developer

Sami Heikkilä

Development Manager [email protected]

Auli Karjalainen

Customer Manager [email protected]

Senate Owner Tuomo Hahl Project

Manager [email protected]

Jarmo Laitinen Professor [email protected]

TUT University Jiri Hietanen Consultant [email protected]