Page 1
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Integrated Project Delivery and
Landscape Architecture Curriculum: Perceived Benefits & Challenges to Curricular Integration
W.C. Harrison
5/8/2012
This paper examined benefits and challenges of including Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD) systems into landscape architecture curriculum. It provides a
literature review of IPD (specifically, Information Modeling (IM) and derivatives)
and effects of IPD integration into corollary design practices. Through literature
review and Diffusion of Innovations Theory, this paper hypothesizes: 1) IPD and
IM can enhance landscape architecture project delivery, particularly in the
design development phase, and 2) landscape architecture academia
represents the late majority and knowledge stage of innovation adoption.
Diffusion of Innovations seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas
and technology spread through cultures. Speculative benefits included
enhanced visualization of design change impacts and more efficient
calculations of materials and sharing of design documentation with corollary
professionals. A survey solicited perceptions of benefits and barriers to IPD
Page 2
1
Keywords: Building Information Modeling (BIM), Site Information Modeling (SIM),
Information Modeling (IM), Landscape architecture curriculum, Site Design,
Technology, Diffusion of Innovations
adoption from the site design community specifically targeting landscape
architecture faculty Also a phone survey was conducted to assess the level of
IPD and IM implementation into landscape architecture programs. Survey
results provided insight into the challenges associated with adopting new
technologies. The phone survey revealed that 79% of landscape architecture
programs were not considering including IPD or IM into future curriculum while
2% have integrated them. Approximately 58% of electronic survey respondents
were not aware of IPD. Although not conclusive, findings suggested IPD and IM
were becoming more prevalent in site design. Landscape architecture lags
behind corollary professions in implementation of integrated innovations. Failure
to embrace innovations places landscape architect programs at a huge
disadvantage in professional practice.
Page 3
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
Research Question ...................................................................................................... 11
1.0 Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Landscape Architecture Curricula .................................................................... 12
1.2 Design Development in the Landscape Architecture Curricula ................ 14
1.3 Integrated Project Development (IPD) & Information Modeling (IM) ....... 15
1.4 IPD and Landscape Architecture Curricula .................................................... 26
1.5 Diffusion of Innovations Theory ........................................................................... 31
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................... 36
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................. 37
3.0 Results .......................................................................................................................... 40
3.1 Benefits and Challenges ...................................................................................... 40
3.2 Diffusion of Innovations Theory ........................................................................... 41
4.0 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 45
5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 47
6.0 References.................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 1. Survey ............................................................................................................. 53
Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 59
Page 4
3
Definitions....................................................................................................................... 61
Organization Overview............................................................................................... 66
Figure 3. Survey Results ............................................................................................... 75
Figure 4. Phone Survey ................................................................................................ 82
Figure 5. Question Matrix ............................................................................................ 84
Figure 6. Word Cloud .................................................................................................. 85
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 86
Page 5
4
Introduction
“No man is an island unto himself,” John Donne’s (1572-1641) famous quote
applies to landscape architecture. Much of what landscape architects do
touches upon and is often dictated by other disciplines; i.e., architecture,
engineering, and construction management. Certainly, landscape
architecture is not an island unto itself, making it imperative to implement IPD
systems. Landscape architecture does not want to find itself alone on an island.
Why should landscape architecture programs implement IPD systems and what
challenges will be encountered?
Design development, the process of translating conceptual design ideas into
implementable documentation, is a critical skill set for landscape architecture
project delivery. In professional practice and in education, the successful
achievement of efficient design development processes can greatly enhance
the quality of design projects. Additionally, with increasingly complicated design
projects requiring more complex collaborations with corollary professions, there
is a need for increased clarity and efficiency in the design development
process. Landscape architects have adopted numerous conventions to this end
with Computer-Aided Design (CAD) being the most prominent set of tools used
to streamline design development.
Architecture, engineering, and construction management disciplines have also
been in the pursuit of increased efficiencies in project delivery. Integrated
Project Delivery (IPD) emerged as a process to address this pursuit. IPD is “a
project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures
and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and
insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner,
reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design,
Page 6
5
fabrication, and construction”. (AIA, 2011) IPD emerged from innovations in
project management and the need for more effective design project
integration with increasingly complex sites and collaborative design
partnerships. Building Information Modeling (BIM) emerged as an application of
IPD that uses visualization and database tools to create efficiencies in
communication and decision making in design project delivery. Although more
common in large scale architecture and engineering projects, Jim Sipes, ASLA,
a national leader in BIM training, writes, “The concept of BIM can be expanded
beyond buildings to include Site Information Models (SIM), Land Information
Models (LIM), and even Program Information Management (PIM)”. (Sipes, pg.
10) Examples of Information Modeling (IM) approaches in Landscape
Architecture practice include (Sipes, pg.32-37):
United States Coast Guard (USCG) Command Center
Approximately three million square feet of facilities was rendered in high
detail using Graphisoft ArchiCAD. In its Command Center project at
Yerba Buena Island, California, the USCG sought to develop a BIM
application that would allow it to focus on the big picture. This complex
project included developing a 1,200 square foot sector command center,
renovating 6,000 square feet of existing office space, and converting
11,000 square feet of barracks into new office space.
Disney's California Adventure—Paradise Pier
Walt Disney Imagineering (WDI) used 4D models to plan the construction
of Paradise Pier, which is part of Disney’s California Adventure in Anaheim,
California. Paradise Pier includes the longest roller coaster track in the
world. It was critical that the track erection sequence allow for ride test
and adjustments so the project would be completed on time. BIM was
used to model the track and other attractions at the pier and to help
Page 7
6
coordinate the contractual sequence of the work. The BIM model
enabled the design team to produce very accurate, detailed
construction documents for the project. As a result, bids were within two
percent of each other because contractors had a good understanding of
what was expected. Change orders were minimal and the construction
was completed on time and within budget.
Higginson Park
Higginson Park is the major open space in Marlow, United Kingdom. In
2005, a limited design competition was held for a new modern pavilion in
the park. The scheme selected was developed by the firm of Markland
Klaschka Ltd. with landscape architect Whitelaw Turkington. According
to Markland Klaschka, the primary reason for using a BIM workflow was to
achieve the design flexibility it delivers. “We had to produce production
information to prove the scheme buildable,” says Robert Klaschka (2006
BE Awards). The visual images were important, in part because this was a
design competition, but also to help communicate the impact the
pavilion would have on the park. According to Robert Klaschka, “We
knew that if we just went with the visuals, although they are really juicy,
that wasn’t going to be the only thing to win the competition. BIM really
allows us to push the model hard: It gives us the ability to do more than
one thing” (2006 BE Awards).
Increasingly, the professional practice demands for IM approaches will impact
Landscape Architecture curricula, especially in design development. Not unlike
the impact of AutoCAD on design development curricula, it is conceivable to
speculate that BIM and SIM could have the same impact on courses. The
universities listed are just a sample of the many schools beginning to implement
IM and IPD into their curriculum (Autodesk, 2012):
Page 8
7
Penn State University
Penn State stresses IPD concepts throughout its architecture and
engineering curricula, training students to participate effectively in
interdisciplinary design teams. In their final years, students participate in
collaborative cross-departmental courses and studios, using BIM solutions
to help develop, explore, and analyze building designs and experience
first-hand the benefits of using an interdisciplinary IPD approach.
Two studio courses in particular emphasize collaboration between
students across disciplines. One is a BIM capstone project that focuses on
integrating AE mechanical, structural, lighting, and construction
engineering students. The other is an interdisciplinary collaborative BIM
studio offered during a student’s fourth, fifth, or graduate year—
depending on the academic program. Both studios rely upon BIM
software for design development and information sharing.
In the collaborative BIM studio, graduate and undergraduate students
from six different disciplines—architecture, landscape architecture,
construction, and structural, mechanical, and lighting/electrical
engineering—are tasked with the design of a project using BIM software
for data collection, analysis, design development, data coordination, and
project presentations. Outside design professionals participate in work
sessions and project reviews. By closely engaging students in each other’s
work, the studio experience gives them insight into the technical,
aesthetic, and social aspects of a collaborative design process. In 2011,
this studio received an honorable mention in the NCARB Prize Program for
Creative Integration of Practice and Education in the Academy.
Page 9
8
Cincinnati University
The University of Cincinnati offers a capstone design course for its
structural engineering undergraduate students and first year operative-
education-based Master of Architecture students. This capstone
experience introduces the students to the concepts and applications of
BIM and IPD, as well as fostering online collaboration between the
students, preparing them for leadership and innovation in an increasingly
globalized industry.
During the latest capstone project, structural engineering students
participated in the course for three quarters of their senior year and the
architecture students for two quarters. With this format, the teams
developed a preliminary design during the first quarter of the course. The
architecture students had early access to structural engineering expertise,
helping them make design decisions based on constructability and cost.
In the following quarters, the teams progressed into design development,
with the structural engineering students finishing the course with more
advanced structural design and analysis.
The capstone course featured a real building client and building project—
a large multinational hotel chain expanding into the United States. The
client is developing standardized hotel designs that will appeal to a
“Generation Y” market from an aesthetic and functional point of view. In
addition, the standardized design must be structurally suited for all areas
of the United States, including earthquake, hurricane, and heavy snow
zones.
Each team—which included both architectural and engineering
students—tackled market research, design studies, program reviews,
Page 10
9
schematic design, design development, and structural analysis. The
student teams interacted virtually with each other throughout the project
as well as with the client, who provided input and feedback on the design
development throughout the project.
Yale University
Yale University’s School of Architecture offers a collaborative design
course to its second year graduate students. The course is an integrated
workshop and lecture series in which students use BIM software to develop
the technical systems of preliminary design proposals from their earlier
studio work. Coursework includes the advancement of structural form and
detail, environmental systems, and envelope design, as well as an
understanding of the constructive processes from which a building
emerges.
In this course, the student architectural teams are challenged with the
task of turning an architectural design into a building design and
addressing issues of constructability and the integration of building
systems. During their classwork, the teams are shepherded by architects,
structural engineers, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP)
engineers—generally outside design professionals—to simulate a
multidiscipline environment.
Kent State University
Kent State’s College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED)
offers degree programs in architecture, interior design, urban design, and
architectural studies. In their undergraduate years, CAED students receive
BIM training in computing classes and use computer applications in their
coursework, including classes in digital fabrication.
Page 11
10
In their senior year, students participate in an integrated design studio. This
integrated design studio has been a mainstay of the professional program
in architecture at the Kent State for more than 30 years and is the
culminating class of a CAED student’s education. Using the knowledge
gained throughout their undergraduate experience, students develop a
capstone project that includes architectural, structural, and ME design
disciplines. The school reaches out to the commercial sector to represent
the structural and MEP disciplines.
The course objective is for students to formulate well-conceived design
solutions by integrating base knowledge from their prior coursework,
including the interrelationship of building systems. In addition, a significant
aspect of the learning experience is the teamwork necessary to
successfully complete the project. The students work primarily in teams of
two or three people (not including the outside structural and MEP
consultants).
In addition to the preparation of students for employment at firms that use BIM,
some speculations on benefits are possible. These benefits include: enhanced
comprehension of design decisions, enhanced cross-discipline collaboration,
and enhanced comprehension of the materials being used. Gordon V.R.
Holness P.E., former society treasurer of The American Society of Heating
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) writes, “Experience has
shown that not only can BIM deliver projects faster, cheaper and better but also
have the potential to gain the added benefits of being safer and greener”.
(Holness, pg. 44)
Page 12
11
Research Question
Forty-five percent of landscape architecture programs reported having no plans
to incorporate IPD or IM into their curriculum. Approximately 58% of electronic
survey respondents reported not even being aware of IPD. Is the scarcity of
landscape architecture curricula, including IPD, a reflection of a lack of
professional demand for the IPD skill set? Is it a lack of faculty training and
expertise? Is it a lack of facilities and technology to effectively teach it? Since
the few curricula that include IPD are in multi-disciplinary environments IPD
(Penn State, Cal Poly, etc.), is the lack of IPD in many landscape architecture
curricula a reflection of the lack of IPD in the curricular interests of corollary
professionals? Little is known about the perceived benefits and challenges to IPD
integration into landscape architecture curricula. This paper asks the following
research question: what are the perceived benefits and challenges to
incorporating IPD into landscape architecture curricula by landscape
architecture faculty?
This paper uses a literature review to introduce Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
and Information Modeling (IM). It describes professional and academic efforts to
apply IPD strategies and begins to identify how IPD resulted in more efficient
project delivery, especially in design development. IPD integration into design
practice and curriculum is discussed in the context of Diffusion of
InnovationsTheory (Rogers, 1995), and the literature review is used to frame issues
related to potential benefits and challenges to integration in landscape
architecture curriculum. Some hypothesized benefits include: 1) enhanced
visualization of the impacts of design changes, 2) better understanding of
materials, 3) a promotion of collaborative multidisciplinary studio, and 4)
improved efficiencies. Additionally, some hypothesized challenges with
curricular integration are presented. These challenges include: 1) lack of
departmental/program awareness; 2) faculty skill and experience with IPD; 3)
Page 13
12
lack of training resources and facilities for IPD training; 4) lack of resources to
purchase and use IPD, and 5) lack of corollary professional pressure for IPD
training (particularly in landscape programs sharing curricula with architecture,
engineering, and construction management programs).
The literature review frames questions used in a survey of site design professionals
with an emphasis on landscape architecture faculty. The survey probes the
perceived benefits and challenges to integrating IPD into curricula. The findings
of the survey interrogate the initial assumptions about perceived benefits and
barriers to IPD integration and provide valuable insights for educators
considering implementation of enhanced design development capabilities.
1.0 Literature Review
1.1 Landscape Architecture Curricula
Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu from the Department of Architecture, Henan
Technical College of Construction, describe four major problems that exist in
current Landscape Architecture curricula: 1) insufficient training for students in
basic skills; 2) insufficiency in comprehensive quality; 3) unvaried teaching
content and methods; and 4) lack of students engaging in practical teaching.
Another interesting point raised by Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu is the
administration of design theory. “In order to avoid prating design theory, the
teachers should combine with the most updated scientific development and
hot issues in the selected cases, so as to make the students know and manage
the up-to-date information and development”. (Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan
Liu, pg. 139) Though this approach is debatable, some credence should be
given to the confusion experienced by students when first exposed to design
Page 14
13
theory. Smith, professor of Architecture at the University of Cincinnati, writes, “A
curriculum should be thought of as a well-designed package of integral
components each of which serve in the capacity of the others. It is not an
effective educational strategy merely to introduce material in a sequential
pattern or link courses together, such as giving a theater design project while
the students are taking an introductory acoustics course. We must adopt a
model of architectural education in which the various germane issues are
presented in terms of their theoretical foundations and their architectural
significance in a manner that is integral to the rest of the curriculum”. (Smith, pg.
7) Smith goes on to explain that some architectural programs are creating
faculty teams to guide studios. These teams are comprised of faculty with
different areas of expertise, to provide students with a more holistic resource to
inform their design decisions. Smith writes, “Unfortunately, successful teams are
difficult to assemble in today's world of academia where most faculty are often
overworked, underpaid, and/or not fully committed to the concept of the
team”. (Smith, pg. 8)
There are many sources on the integration of technology-mainly multimedia-
into primary and secondary curricula but very little into site design curricula.
Most of the information pertaining to CAD in the site design fields speaks about
their application and not implementation into curricula. Though written in the
late 80’s, Dr. Marscalek’s, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, paper, A
New Approach to Curriculum Development in Environmental Design, does
include a production related category in his curricula description, which one
would assume would have included computer related topics in present time.
Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu write,” It (multimedia teaching) is good for
cultivating students' creative thinking and improving their image thinking ability.
Therefore, multimedia teaching is one of the best teaching methods of
Landscape Architecture education”. (Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu, pg.
Page 15
14
139) Again, this looks at the implementation of multimedia tools, but not CAD,
and certainly not augmentations of it. There is a definite need for study in this
area to help facilitate the implementation of technical tools to assist in the
increasingly complex and interwoven site design practice.
1.2 Design Development in the Landscape Architecture Curricula
The needs of Landscape Architecture practice presumably impact the content
and delivery of Landscape Architecture curricula. Design development, the
translation of conceptual design into implementable documentation, is
achieved using a wide range of tools and techniques, and is increasingly reliant
on competencies in digital design media. Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
revolutionized the design development process by using technology to draft,
modify, and share design documentation more efficiently. These advantages
over what was previously a hand-drawn documentation process are well
established. These efficiencies impacted Landscape Architecture professional
expectations of student learning, faculty skill sets, and resources dedicated to
the design development process.
The Landscape Architecture Body of Knowledge (LABOK) report articulates a
base framework and expectation of the body of knowledge expected from
Landscape Architecture curricula. Of the nine domains identified, two are
focused on design development and the transformation of concepts to
implementable documentation: 1) Site design engineering: Materials, Methods,
Techniques and Applications; and 2) Construction Documentation and
Administration.
Through the guidance of a working group and analysis of program survey results,
the LABOK report provides a snapshot of professional and academic
Page 16
15
perceptions of the needs of Landscape Architecture curricula. When asked
what design development skill sets were very important to professional practice,
82.75% of respondents reported that the ability to prepare construction
documents was very important (Table 19).
1.3 Integrated Project Development (IPD) & Information Modeling (IM)
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) has become an integral component in the
design process and, with the exponential growth of technology, will only
become more essential. CAD is software used in art, architecture, engineering,
and manufacturing to aid in precision drawing. Ivan Sutherland is often
credited as being a major contributor to CAD with his PhD thesis Sketchpad, at
MIT in the 1960’s. Ironically, unlike most CAD systems today, Sketchpad enlisted
the use of a light pen that designers used to draw directly onto their computer
monitor. Today, over 60 years later, there is a focus on creating more intuitive
and natural ways for users to interact with computers. This has manifested in
CAD as tablets, touch screens, and even incipient gesture recognition interface
technologies.
Integrated Project Delivery, sometimes referred to as concurrent engineering, is
a recent category in the evolution of CAD in the site design world. IPD is a
strategy that replaces the traditional sequential site development process with
one in which tasks are performed analogously by all design team members. It
provides instant feedback to all team members as they manipulate the site
design by showing how their manipulations affect those made by the rest of the
teams, both graphically and non-graphically. The goals of IPD are to optimize
project results, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of
design, fabrication, construction, and even maintenance. Holness stated, “The
Page 17
16
benefits [of IPD] can be substantial, with the potential savings in construction
cost alone expected to range from 15% to 40%, with parallel reductions in
construction schedules and improvements in quality”. (Holness, pg. 39) An
example is a landscape architect who is grading a site. In order to
accommodate the grading, a civil engineer would review a digital or print
representation of the change, or at best an x-ref. The civil engineer would then
proceed to modify the storm water management systems and relay the
changes back to the landscape architect in a circular, yet sequential order. In
an IPD environment, as soon as the landscape architect made the grading
change they would be instantly informed how their manipulation to grade has
affected run off velocity, storm water management systems, and all of the other
site components. These innovations lend themselves to the ever more
connected world of site design. The ability to work on one file concurrently,
provide instant quantitative and qualitative feedback, and being able to
expand these abilities to a design team stationed virtually all over the world are
the essence of IPD.
Information Modeling (IM) is an integral component of IPD and is a system of
evaluating geometry, spatial relationships, light analysis, geographic
information, quantities, and properties of a building’s components. Though
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the most prevalent form of IM, it can be
expanded beyond buildings to include Site Information Models (SIM), Land
Information Models (LIM), and even Program Information Management (PIM).
(Sipes, pg. 10)
The Building Smart Alliance, a council of the National Institute of Building
Sciences (NIBS) is an organization, “helping to make the North American real
property industry more efficient by leading the creation of tools and standards
that allow projects to be built electronically before they are built physically using
Page 18
17
Building Information Modeling (BIM)”.( Building Smart Alliance, 2012) They are
currently working with the following governmental and private organizations to
promote the use of BIM (an overview of the organizations can be found in the
Appendix D):
Governmental Organizations
1. General Services Administration (GSA)
2. U.S. Air Force Building Information Modeling for MILCON
Transformation
3. U.S. Army - Civil Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)
4. U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Private Organizations
1. 7group
2. American Institute of Architects (AIA)
3. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
4. American Society for Quality (ASQ)
5. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE)
6. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
7. American Society of Professional Estimators
8. American Society of Interior Designers (ASID)
9. Association of General Contractors of America (AGC) – BIM Forum
10. Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)
11. Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA)
12. Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC)
Page 19
18
13. Center for Facilities and Environment (CIFE)
14. Construction Industry Institute (CII)
15. Construction Managers Association of America (CMAA)
16. Construction Owners Association of America (COAA)
17. Construction Specifications Institute (CSI)
18. Construction Users Round Table (CURT)
19. Design Build Institute of America (DBIA)
20. FIATECH
21. Georgia Tech AEC Integration Lab
22. Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability (MTS)
23. International Center for Facilities (ICF) Ottawa
24. International Code Council (ICC) - SMARTcodes™
25. International Facilities Managers Association (IFMA)
26. Lean Construction Institute (LCI)
27. National Academy of Sciences Federal Facilities Council (FFC)
28. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
29. National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP)
30. Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
31. Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE)
32. PRO IT: Finnish Consortium of Modelers
33. Project Management Institute Design Procurement Construction
Specific Interest Group (DPC-SIG)
34. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association
(SMACNA)
35. Specifications Consultants in Independent Practice (SCIP)
36. Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC)
37. U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
Page 20
19
NIBS also reported that recently the United Kingdom g\Government initiated a
strategy for the requirement of building information modeling (BIM) on all
projects within 5 years. Although a minimum project size was initially set, it is felt
this was arbitrary and will likely be eliminated. The starting point for the UK’s
implementation is Construction Operations Building information exchange
(COBie) using a spreadsheet as a base from which everyone can work. They see
BIM and COBie as significant parts of their carbon reduction strategy. COBie is
open BIM standards based using the international standard ISO 16739 or IFC,
which is at the heart of the building SMART alliance™ approach. COBie was
recently added to the National BIM Standard-United Statess™. Sipes forecasted
this trend in his 2008 Landscape Architect Technical Information Series
contribution, “Soon, all major design and construction projects will require BIM at
one level or another. There will be opportunities for collaboration at a much
higher level than ever before, and landscape architects should play a major
role in addressing even the most complex design, planning, and construction
projects”. (Sipes, pg. 2)
Even though IM has been on the market since the 1980’s and has been
embraced by many private and public organizations, it has not been
embraced by the Landscape Architecture profession. Flohr wrote, “Currently IPD
and BIM software are being developed by the software and construction
industry with American Institute of Architects at the helm, and landscape
architects have little to no voice in this process”. (Flohr, pg. 170) According to
Holness, “compared to other industries (automotive, aircraft, petrochemical,
etc.), the design and construction industry has been slow to embrace the
tremendous opportunities afforded by this technology”. Perhaps one way to
explain this disparity is three myths described by Marc Goldman who led the
global BIM business efforts for Pinnacle InfoTech Inc. and Satellier Inc. in a 2011
Design Intelligence article (Goldman, 2011):
Page 21
20
Myth: Not Enough Content
Due to the relatively recent introduction of IM into the site design field, a
common complaint is the lack of a complete library for IM applications.
This issue is averted by the ability for all IM software to provide functionality
for customizing and creating new content.
Myth: It’s Immature
Goldman writes, “There exists a belief that BIM software is immature or
simply not applicable to the field of Landscape Architecture. This is the
leading barrier to adoption of BIM for landscape”. (Goldman, 2011)
However, IM applications can be successfully applied to landscape
because IM is fundamentally about intelligent objects that work on a
database foundation. There are also several existing applications such as
Civil3D, Landmark, and Revit that can currently be used for the landscape
architecture practice.
Myth: Poor Data Exchange
Due to the information latent nature of IM, the issue of content access
and sharing is an important issue. This is essentially where the overarching
concept of Integrated Project Delivery comes into action. Numerous
workflow solutions that improve collaboration are being developed along
with IM standards, such as the efforts being made by the Smart Building
Alliance.
Page 22
21
However, IM is quickly becoming integrated into site design practice for
professions corollary to Landscape Architecture. The most prominent
manifestation of IM is Building Information Modeling (BIM) which focuses on built
structures. At the 2009 AIA Convention, Neeley wrot, “Design professionals are
moving to BIM [at least two] times faster than the transition from hand drawing
to CAD, which took about fifteen years.” (Deutsch, pg. 4) Strong described, “In
many ways, the move toward BIM is an owner-driven change. Technological
evolution coupled with owner demand for better, faster, less costly construction
projects and more effective practices are driving change in the construction
industry in general and architecture practice in particular”. (Sipes, pg.4) With
increasingly complex projects and with numerous professional colleagues in
different locations working simultaneously, IM might become more appropriate
for mainstream Landscape Architecture practice and, therefore, education.
Travis Flohr, RLA, from the Department of Landscape Architecture at Penn State
wrote, “With current economic pressures, and clients demanding faster project
delivery with a higher degree of accountability, BIM can provide an advanced
software solution” (Flohr, pg.170) Sipes stated that, “Landscape architects
frequently work with architects, many of whom are already using BIM. Being
able to work with the same BIM files as architects is a huge advantage for any
sub-consultants wanting to work on architecture-oriented projects”. (Sipes, pg.
24)
There is also opposition to BIM integration into architectural design. Peggy
Deamer stated during the Autodesk Yale University symposium in 2010 that,
“more fundamentally the intimacy of the design process is deeply shaken by a
software (BIM) who’s main attribute is precisely to do away with that intimacy,
an intimacy that is threatened by no longer believing in a singular author and no
longer believes in the myth of inspiration”. (Deamer, 2010) Renee Cheng, Head
Page 23
22
of the Department of Architecture from the University of Minnesota, stated,
“…one can easily fear a future where BIM has effectively made us too stupid to
question the rules and assumptions we are meant to control”. (Cheng, 2006)
Integrated Project Development (IPD) and Information Modeling (IM) offer both
benefits and challenges in their inclusion into site design practice. These benefits
and challenges have been identified with respect to Landscape Architecture,
Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Management practices:
Benefits
1. Enhanced design visualization
As the nature of BIM is 3-dimensional, a virtual model of a design is able to
be seen before it is constructed, or non-digitally modeled. This provides
designers with almost instant aesthetic feedback on their design decisions.
“Three-dimensional models have great importance not only in their
traditional role as a means of communicating design information but also
in externalizing the designer’s thought process by allowing visualization of
the design product.” (Nahm, Y. -. & Ishikawa, H., pg. 137)
2. Reduced errors and omissions
IPD can instantly detect potential flaws or errors in design schematics
before an actual structure is built. This is done not only within the
landscape architect’s scope of work, but with other collaborating fields.
Sipes wrote, “BIM can be used to check for compliance with building
codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and other
requirements. This same approach can apply to a site as well”. (Sipes, pg.
5) Flohr echoed this by referencing Eastman, “BIM can also eliminate
inefficiencies in the design and construction process. Working with a
Page 24
23
central file allows for real-time updates of information so every consultant
is working with current information. Automated construction
documentation and centralized file repositories have saved time and
money by reducing change orders (Eastman 2008)”. (Flohr, pg. 169)
3. More focus on value-added tasks
Because BIM enables the designer to essentially work concurrently with
their design and the constructability of that design, more time can be
appropriated to further design exploration. James Sipes also wrote, “BIM
also provides opportunities to explore a broader range of design
alternatives and to analyze life cycle costs for these alternatives. With a
greater level of collaboration at the beginning of the project, it is possible
to make many critical decisions earlier during the design part of the
process”. (Sipes, pg. 5)
4. Less waste of materials and time; less reworking
There are ample opportunities for improving efficiency and productivity in
the construction industry. The U.S. General Services Administration
estimates that an integrated delivery can help reduce waste in the
construction industry by more than 30 percent (Cote 2008). “The increase
in ability to analyze construction sequencing, means and methods,
procurement evaluation, and schedule analysis will lead to faster, more
efficient fabrication and construction,” indicated Dan Kirby, Director of
Development Services for Boyken International, Inc. (Kirby 2007).(Sipes, pg.
5) A big benefit provided by IPD and IM is increased productivity and
project efficiency. “Any BIM package is going to give you a change in
productivity,” saids AEC Infosystem’s President, Dianne Davis. “We have
documented our change as being about a 40 percent increase in
productivity, and that is significant” (Davis 2007). Holness stated, “The
Page 25
24
benefits can be substantial, with the potential savings in construction cost
alone expected to range from 15% to 40%, with parallel reductions in
construction schedules and improvements in quality”. (Holness, pg. 39)
Holness went on to explain that through these enhanced efficiency, “…
reduced both scrap handling, and on-site transportation, lessened the use
of on-site aerial lifts, minimized site disturbance, and reduced overall
energy use through shorter construction schedules”. (Holness, pg. 44)
5. Fewer translation errors and losses
By using real-time, object based imaging and building information
modeling database techniques, the architectural/engineering (A/E)
drawings can facilitate the direct, seamless, and simultaneous flow of
information to all parties in the construction process: owners, program
managers, consultants, code officials, general contractors, trade
subcontractors, suppliers, distributors, vendors, and manufacturers. The
potential exists to significantly reduce the number of communication
steps, eliminate the need to translate or transfer information, thereby,
reducing time and cost while increasing accuracy and quality. (Holness,
pg. 39)
Challenges
1. Investment Costs
A major challenge to the integration of IPD and IM into both academia
and professional practice is the investment costs. Holness stateds, “One
might ask why this radical change to using BIM hasn't already occurred.
The answer lies in part in the original investment cost, which is significant. In
today's highly competitive market, it is tough to cover the upfront cost.
Someone has to develop the electronic database and software for every
Page 26
25
component going into a building. Some of this development is being
done by commercial software companies. Some work will be done by the
building component manufacturers, as part of product development.
Some will be done by the A/E companies themselves, tailoring and
integrating the various software packages”. (Holness, pg. 46) A specific
aspect of this investment cost is the amount of storage space required by
BIM. Sipes writes, “Because of the data needs for BIM, storage is a major
issue.” (Sipes, pg. 7) Sipes goes on to mention the exponential growth of
storage capacity that will eventually make this a mute issue.
2. Training
Due to the complexity of BIM software, it is critical that practitioners
receive proper training. Sipes wrote, “The intelligence of BIM is built upon
the experiences of countless designers and engineers who have had input
in creating the software and defining the rules that govern BIM. It is critical
that more experienced designers, project managers, and principals be
able and willing to validate, check, and modify the data in BIM. One
approach is to incorporate adequate verification points and milestones
during the design and construction process to keep a project on track
and to validate decisions”. (Sipes, pg. 6)
3. Ownership and Liability
Another challenge is the shifting and dissemination of liability amongst
project participants. Sipes wrote, “The increased level of integration and
collaboration comes with a risk. The BIM approach is collaborative, data is
shared, and the design process is iterative. Because of this, liability and
risks are shared by the owner, the designer, the builder, and all other
parties involved in a project. In the short term, this could cause some
significant concerns because of the legal liabilities. Under the existing
Page 27
26
contract structure, Landscape Architecture firms are simply not set up to
accommodate the shared risk that comes with BIM”. (Sipes, pg. 7)
1.4 IPD and Landscape Architecture Curricula
As stated previously, several universities have already begun incorporating IPD
and IM into their curriculas. An AutoDesk report describes “lessons learned” and
“faculty advice” from the implementation of BIM and IPD into Penn State, Kent
State, Cincinnati University and Yale University’s design curriculas (Autodesk,
2012):
Lessons Learned
During the BIM and IPD studios, students gain skills in team building and
communication, but this collaborative experience can also negatively
influence the quality of the project if there is too much design by
consensus. Faculty need to balance the need for practical
compromises against students taking the path of least resistance.
Penn State’s collaborative studios can only accommodate a portion of
its students based on the complexity of organizing and managing the
logistics, educational schedules, student teams, and outside design
professionals. As the studios and their pedagogical goals evolve, the
faculty is constantly working to balance the goals against the required
effort and results.
A collaborative team environment and design process can be
frustrating for many students who typically work independently.
Page 28
27
Expectations for team behavior and goals are discussed early in the
process and monitored throughout the studio by the faculty.
For students to master the basics of the BIM software and use it
productively on their capstone project, software self-training needs to
be paired with external expert training.
The students immediately embraced the interactive, online
collaboration aspects of the course. In addition, the online
collaboration forced them to plan for their virtual meetings and
communicate—both verbally and digitally—more precisely. However,
coordinating the schedules and computing platforms of students from
two colleges (architecture and engineering) was challenging. In such
an interactive course, both students and faculty must be flexible with
their schedules, as project dialog and critiques can occur at various
times—including weekends and evenings—via both scheduled and
spontaneous review sessions.
Charging the students with producing designs that were both
innovative (architecturally) and practical (structurally) in the course
timeframe was sometimes challenging for the students and reduced
the quality of the student projects.
The major challenges of using IPD in an educational curriculum relate
to the students’ knowledge of the interrelationship of building systems.
It is important to address a student’s knowledge of integrated design
earlier in their education, optimizing the value of collaborative teams
and decision-making in their culminating studio experience. In prior
classes and studios, architectural students should go beyond
Page 29
28
conceptual design to confront detailed design and the integration of
building systems—proving the constructability of radical forms when
appropriate.
The use of building simulation software and multidiscipline design
solutions in lower grades helps students explore the relationship
between design and construction. This enables them to integrate their
conceptual design thinking with building methods and materials, and
better understand how a range of factors including aesthetics, cost,
and environmental impact can influence design decisions.
At the beginning of the studio, some architectural students are
uncomfortable working outside their own academic discipline and are
reluctant to embrace the collaborative experience. The faculty must
impress upon the students that design development is a continuation
of the design process and that building systems can be used as tools to
advance their design.
Students should receive training in the BIM software earlier in the
curriculum, enabling them to focus on the collaborative design goals
of the studio without the distraction of learning new software.
Faculty advice
To prevent unbalanced student teams, the faculty should be closely
involved in the formation of the studio teams.
Page 30
29
In schools without construction disciplines, collaborative classes and
design studios should include outside construction professionals who
can provide real-world input and experience.
Work closely with other faculty members to produce studios that meet
the needs of the students.
Due to the additional faculty and resources required to manage
collaborative studios, administrative support and enthusiasm is essential
for the studio’s success.
Work closely with other faculty members to produce studios that meet
the needs of the students and different educational programs, building
support for the studio amongst the faculty and administration.
The student teams should have a critical mass to challenge each other
and promote a healthy level of competition between the teams.
Administrative commitment and support is crucial for a success due to
the additional resources (faculty and infrastructure) required for the
course.
The use of a real project and a real client greatly enhances the
student’s learning and whenever possible should be incorporated into
the collaborative studio experience.
Though the majority of the articles referenced were from the perspective of
corollary fields and professional practice, many of the same benefits and
challenges can potentially be applied to Landscape Architecture curricula:
Page 31
30
Benefits
1. Enhanced design visualization
2. Reduced errors and omissions
3. More focus on value-added tasks
4. Less waste of materials and time and less reworking required
5. Fewer translation errors and losses
6. Promotion of cross-discipline collaboration
Challenges
1. Investment Costs
2. Training
Page 32
31
1.5 Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Given the measurable benefits provided by adoption of IPD strategies in
corollary design professions, as well as a small segment of landscape
architecture curricula and practitioners, how can these trends inform the
investigation of perceived barriers to a more widespread adoption of IPD in
landscape architecture?
Diffusion of Innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what
rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. “Diffusion refers to the
process in which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over
time among the members of a social system. Innovations are new ideas, the
new application of innovations, or an idea perceived as new. When it comes to
the adoption of innovations and ideas, one of the central questions
surrounding diffusion research is the identification of differences between early
and late adopters. Innovativeness refers to the willingness and ability to adopt
new ideas earlier than other people or groups”. (Diffusion of innovations, 2009)
The Diffusion of Innovations theory identifies six factors that characterize
adopters along with the nature of their environment:
1. Societal entity of innovators
2. Familiarity with the innovation
3. Status characteristics
4. Socioeconomic characteristics
5. Relative position in social networks
6. Personal characteristics
Page 33
32
Another significant component of Roger’s theory is the rate of adoption of the
innovation. Five factors of adoption are described below (Diffusion of
innovations, 2009):
1. Relative advantage of the innovation in comparison to existing solutions
and practices
2. Compatibility with existing and potential needs and experiences
3. Complexity in terms of the degree of understanding
4. Trialability, that is, to experience the innovation to a certain degree and
time period
5. Observability or degree to which an innovation or its results are
observable. The thesis is that if individuals see the success of an
innovation they are more likely to adopt it.
Roger’s theory addressed the stages of adoption of the innovation. Five stages
of adoption are described below (Rogers, page 20):
1. Knowledge occurs when an individual (or other decision making unit)
learns of the innovation's existence and gains some understanding of how
it functions
2. Persuasion occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)
forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.
3. Decision occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)
engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the
innovation.
Page 34
33
4. Implementation occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)
puts an innovation into use. Re-invention is especially likely to occur at the
implementation stage.
5. Confirmation occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit)
seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision that has already been
made, but the individual may reverse this previous decision if exposed to
conflicting messages about the innovation.
Rogers also identified five categories of adopters described below (National
Network of Libraries of Medicine, 1997):
1. Innovators are the first 2.5 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt
an innovation. Venturesomeness is almost an obsession with innovators.
This interest in new ideas leads them out of a local circle of peer networks
and into more cosmopolite social relationships. Communication patterns
and friendships among a clique of innovators are common, even though
the geographical distance between the innovators may be considerable.
Being an innovator has several prerequisites. Control of substantial
financial resources is helpful to absorb the possible loss from an
unprofitable innovation. The ability to understand and apply complex
technical knowledge is also needed. The innovator must be able to cope
with a high degree of uncertainty about an innovation at the time of
adoption. While an innovator may not be respected by the other
members of a social system, the innovator plays an important role in the
diffusion process-- that of launching the new idea in the system by
importing the innovation from outside the system's boundaries. Thus, the
innovator plays a gatekeeping role in the flow of new ideas into a system.
Page 35
34
2. Early Adopters are the next 13.5 percent of the individuals in a system to
adopt an innovation. Early adopters are a more integrated part of the
local system than are innovators. Whereas innovators are cosmopolites,
early adopters are localites. This adopter category, more than any other,
has the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential
adopters look to early adopters for advice and information about the
innovation. This adopter category is generally sought by change agents
as a local missionary for speeding the diffusion process. Because early
adopters are not too far ahead of the average individual in
innovativeness, they serve as a role-model for many other members of a
social system. The early adopter is respected by his or her peers and
embodies successful, discrete use of new ideas. The early adopter knows
that to continue to earn esteem of colleagues and to maintain a central
position in the communication networks of the system; he or she must
make judicious innovation-decisions. The early adopter decreases
uncertainty about a new idea by adopting it and then conveying a
subjective evaluation of the innovation to near-peers through
interpersonal networks.
3. Early Majority is the next 34 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt
an innovation. The early majority adopt new ideas just before the average
member of a system. The early majority interact frequently with their peers,
but seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in a system. The early
majority's unique position between the very early and the relatively late to
adopt makes them an important link in the diffusion process. They provide
interconnectedness in the system's interpersonal networks. The early
majority are one of the two most numerous adopter categories, making
up one-third of the members of a system. The early majority may
Page 36
35
deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. "Be not
the first by which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside," fits the
thinking of the early majority. They follow with deliberate willingness in
adopting innovations, but seldom lead.
4. Late Majority is the next 34 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt
an innovation. The late majority adopt new ideas just after the average
member of a system. Like the early majority, the late majority make up
one-third of the members of a system. Adoption may be the result of
increasing network pressures from peers. Innovations are approached with
a skeptical and cautious air, and the late majority do not adopt until most
others in their system have done so. The weight of system norms must
definitely favor an innovation before the late majority are convinced. The
pressure of peers is necessary to motivate adoption. Their relatively scarce
resources mean that most of the uncertainty about a new idea must be
removed before the late majority feel that it is safe to adopt.
5. Laggards are the last 16 percent of the individuals in a system to adopt an
innovation. They possess almost no opinion leadership. Laggards are the
most localite in their outlook of all adopter categories; many are near
isolates in the social networks of their system. The point of reference for the
laggard is the past. Decisions are often made in terms of what has been
done previously. Laggards tend to be suspicious of innovations and
change agents. Resistance to innovations on the part of laggards may be
entirely rational from the laggard's viewpoint as their resources are limited
and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail before they can
adopt.
Page 37
36
Summary of Findings
There is very little information about the structuring of landscape architecture
curricula or the integration of technology into landscape architecture curricula.
The literature suggests that the majority of landscape architecture academia is
not on the cutting edge of the latest technological innovations for site design
practice. However, with the current economic condition, the demand for faster
and more efficient project delivery, and more complex projects, IPD and IM will
become more prevalent in the site design industry. Corollary professions to
landscape architecture are using IPD and IM more frequently in both
professional practice and academia. In addition to the economic challenges
to implementing these innovations, there are also psychological barriers that
contribute to current status of IPD and IM in landscape architecture academia.
Page 38
37
2.0 Methodology
To evaluate the hypothesized benefits and challenges associated with IPD
integration, an electronic survey (Appendix A) was created to solicit the
perceptions of landscape architecture faculty. In addition, a phone survey
(Appendix F) was conducted to assess the level of IPD and IM implementation
into landscape architecture programs in the United States. The surveys were in
part informed by Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory, a highly
regarded social theory created by Rogers in 1962. The electronic survey was
created and distributed online using Wufoo. Wufoo is an Internet application
that enables users to create online forms. When you design a form with Wufoo,
it automatically builds the database, backend and scripts needed to make
collecting and understanding your data easy and efficient. Both surveys were
targeted at the 70 accredited and candidacy landscape architecture
programs described by the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).
Accreditation is administered by the Landscape Architectural Accreditation
Board (LAAB). The accreditation process evaluates each program on the basis
of its stated objectives and compliance to externally mandated minimum
standards. The electronic survey was also distributed through Land8Lounge, a
social networking site that is specific to site design students and professionals.
An electronic survey was used because of its ability to be completed at the
respondent’s pace, produce faster results, reduce errors, analyze data, and be
easily disseminated. It was comprised of 16 multiple choice questions and 1
open-ended question. Due to low percentage of responses from the electronic
survey, a phone survey was also conducted to generate additional statistical
analysis information about the use of IPD/IM into landscape architecture
curricula. One of the disadvantages to using the survey method is the
generalization of questions in order to make them appropriate for all
respondents, which can result in an exclusion of information. To alleviate this,
Page 39
38
“other” selections were available for all applicable multiple choice questions.
Additionally, respondents were able to contribute other comments during the
phone interview. The electronic survey yielded a response rate of 44%. The
phone survey yielded a response rate of 60%. The electronic survey was
analyzed and the results organized into two categories which are further
elaborated on in the Results section:
2.1 Benefits
1. Enhanced visualization of the impacts of design change
2. Better understanding of materials
3. A promotion of collaborative multidisciplinary studio
4. Improved efficiencies
2.2 Challenges
1. Lack of departmental/program awareness
2. Faculty skill and experience with IPD
3. Lack of training resources and facilities for IPD training
4. Lack of resources to purchase and use IPD
5. Lack of corollary professional pressure for IPD training
The phone survey was used to collect additional statistical information about the
use of IPD and IM in national landscape architecture programs. Respondents of
the phone survey were asked if their program used IPD or IM in their current
curricula, and if not, were they considering incorporating them. Anecdotally,
some respondents offered additional information which was added to the
statistical data.
Both survey’s results were also analyzed through the lens of Rodger’s Diffusion of
Innovations theory to determine landscape architecture academia’s potential
Page 40
39
level of innovation acceptance. The portions of the Diffusion of Innovations
theory that were used were characterization, stages of adoption, and adopter
category:
Participant Characterization
These questions are rooted in two of the six factors that characterize
adopters: Societal entity of innovators; and Familiarity with the innovation.
Participant Stages of Adoption
These questions are rooted in the five stages of adoption: knowledge;
persuasion; decision; implementation; and confirmation.
Participant Adoption Category
The questions are rooted in the five categories of adopters: innovators;
early adopters; early majority; late majority; and laggards.
Page 41
40
3.0 Results
The Results section is an analysis of both the Wufoo and phone surveys. The
statistical information was gathered to provide insights into the challenges
associated with adopting new technologies and to determine landscape
architecture academia’s potential level of innovation acceptance. The first
section analyzes the hypothesized benefits and challenges of IPD and IM
implementation into landscape architecture curricula. The second analyzes the
survey information through the lens of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory to
determine landscape architecture academia’s level of innovation acceptance.
Only characterization, stages of adoption, and adopter category from Rogers’
theory were used in the assessment.
3.1 Benefits and Challenges
Benefits
Due to the 69% of electronic survey respondents who reported not using IPD in
their design development courses or 58% who reported not being aware of IPD,
it was difficult to examine the hypothesized benefits of IPD and IM integration.
However, 6% of respondents reported observing a decrease in student work
time, an increase in accuracy, and improved visualization. Of the 13% of
respondents who used IPD in their courses, 75% agreed that IPD had enhanced
their design development courses. Of the respondents that had IPD in their
design development courses, 50% indicated being undecided about its ability
to make their students more competitive for professional work. None of the
respondents commented on promotion of enhanced multidisciplinary studios
due to the implementation of IPD or IM.
Page 42
41
Challenges
The electronic survey yielded more insightful information about the hypothesized
challenges than the benefits. The lack of resources to purchase IPD/IM was
reflected by 10% of respondents who indicated that increased resources for
software would improve their ability to adopt IPD in their courses. This was
followed by 7% who cited increased departmental support and awareness for
IPD. Faculty skill and experience with IPD/IM was limited. Forty-two percent of
respondents indicated they were not familiar with IPD, and 16% did not have the
skill to use IPD in their curricula. Additionally, 13% responded that they were not
experiencing any departmental pressure to implement IPD as the reason for not
using innovation. Interestingly, 35% were familiar with Building Information
Modeling (BIM), while only 29% were aware of Site Information Modeling (SIM).
Thirty-two percent reported learning about IPD through interaction with other
design professionals, and 6% knew about IPD before teaching. Three percent
indicated an increase in practitioner demand for IPD would improve their ability
to adopt it. Approximately 67% of respondents were undecided whether or not
IPD could enhance their students’ competitiveness for professional work.
3.2 Diffusion of Innovations Theory
Characterization
These questions are rooted in factors that characterize adopters. The only
factors assessed were: societal entity of the innovator and familiarity with the
innovation. The other factors-- status characteristics, socio-economic
characteristics, relative position in social networks, and personal characteristics--
were omitted as they had no relevance to this study:
Societal entity of innovators (people, universities, regions, etc.)
Page 43
42
Through this lens the survey respondents are classified as educators in
landscape architecture.
Familiarity with the innovation
Forty-two percent of electronic survey respondents indicated knowledge
of IPD. Additionally 31% indicated they used IPD in their courses. The 31%
was only based upon 18 responses of the possible 31. With the lack of
responses and consistency to the questions, I am inclined to believe that
there is, in general, a lack of familiarity with IPD and IM among landscape
architecture educators. Additionally, the phone survey resulted in only 2%
of the schools indicating that they use IPD or IM in their curricula.
Categories of Innovation adopters
The categories of innovation of adopters are comprised of innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Based upon the survey
responses and literature review, the level of academia adoption is late majority.
The late majority category was selected due to a lack of innovation leadership,
innovation skepticism, and low levels of innovation adoption. Approximately
70% of electronic survey respondents indicated that they did not use IPD in their
curricula. Also, only 31% of respondents indicated they used IPD. However, 50%
of respondents indicated they were not aware of IPD. Four respondents did
report either having IPD-based studio electives, course integration, or IPD project
submission requirements. The phone survey revealed only 21% of schools are
considering the inclusion of IPD or IM into their curricula, although 40%
volunteered that they do encourage their use.
Innovation skepticism is expressed both in the literature review and in the survey.
Peggy Deamer of Yale University stated that, “more fundamentally the intimacy
of the design process is deeply shaken by a software (BIM) whose main attribute
is precisely to do away with that intimacy, an intimacy that is threatened by no
Page 44
43
longer believing in a singular author and no longer believes in the myth of
inspiration”. (Deamer, 2010) Renee Cheng, Head of the Department of
Architecture from the University of Minnesota, stated, “…one can easily fear a
future where BIM has effectively made us too stupid to question the rules and
assumptions we are meant to control”. (Cheng, 2006) One survey respondent,
when asked, why don’t you use IPD in your curricula answered, “I try to avoid
singular platform approaches to developing design senses.” In addition, 56% of
electronic survey respondents were undecided about IPD’s ability to enhance
their design development courses.
The lack of innovation leadership is expressed by the general lack of responses
to the electronic survey. Seventy percent of electronic survey respondents
indicated they were not using IPD in their curricula, and 55% were undecided of
IPD’s ability to enhance their design development courses. James Sipes also
writes, “Landscape architects frequently work with architects, many of whom
are already using BIM”. (Sipes, pg. 24) This is echoed by Flohr, “Currently IPD and
BIM software are being developed by the software and construction industry
with American Institute of Architects at the helm, and landscape architects
Page 45
44
have little to no voice in this process”. (Flohr, pg. 170) The electronic survey
results support this statement.
Participant Stages of Adoption
The five stages of adoption are comprised of knowledge, persuasion, decision,
implementation and confirmation. Based upon both the electronic and phone
survey, landscape architecture academia seems to be in the persuasion stage
of adoption. Forty-two percent of respondents reported being aware of IPD/IM,
but only 2% of respondents from the phone survey were using IPD/IM in their
curricula Thirty-one percent electronic survey respondents were using IPD,
placing them in the implementation stage. Only 29% reported having
knowledge of SIM. This would indicate that there is still a large majority of
landscape architecture academia who are not even aware of the derivatives
of IM that is most applicable to them, placing them in the knowledge stage.
Though the total range of stages, with the exception of confirmation, can be
found in the surveys, the collective statistics describe the vast majority of
respondents still hovering between the persuasion and decision stages.
Page 46
45
4.0 Analysis
The introduction of IPD/IM appears to parallel that of AutoCAD. Neither was
readily accepted and embraced by the site design professions. Even though
the implementation of BIM is happening faster, it still took about 15 years for
designers to move from hand drawing to CAD. (Duetch. p. 4) Innovators saw
the need and potential for both technologies; however, the majority of the
profession was/is slow to embrace them. A healthy amount of skepticism and
resistance to new ideas is good. It forces us to carefully examine what we are
proposing and to think more critically about it. However, as Roger’s theory of
Diffusion of Innovations suggests, there is more to resistance than just Socratic
apprehension. By examining the results of the surveys conducted, it is apparent
that: 1) IPD and IM can enhance landscape architecture project delivery,
particularly in the design development phase, and 2) landscape architecture
academia represents the late majority and primarily are in the knowledge stage
of innovation adoption.
Ultimately, the premise behind the implementation of IPD and IM is to improve
the quality and efficiencies of our design processes. There is, however, a
practical importance for the implementation of such software in site design.
Paradiso of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) wrote, “The digitally-
augmented environments of tomorrow will exploit a diverse architecture of
wired and wireless sensors through which user intent, context, and interactive
gesture will be dynamically extracted”. (Paradiso, pg. 345) It only makes sense
to infer that the designers of these structures and spaces will have to evolve their
design processes to accommodate the added complexities of these integrated
technologies. As a matter of pragmatism, it is becoming imperative that the
software we use in the design process has the ability to organize, display,
extrapolate, mind, and troubleshoot data concurrently. IPD and IM are the
Page 47
46
inevitable response to the complexities of modern design. While some people
find the prospect of this ubiquitous future exciting, others might find the constant
connection to our spaces invasive. Marianne Peterson, from the University of
Aarhus, Department of Computer Science, wrote, “We see a danger in that
people may lose their sense of control in environments where they are
seamlessly tracked and profiled. Thus, instead of striving for technology to
become invisibly embedded in our environments, we seek to make technology
visible and remarkable [4]. After all, we want to exploit that the most intelligent
in our environments remain the people who inhabit the spaces”. (Peterson, pg.
44) Whichever support group you may fall into--the proponent, opponents, or
somewhere in between--, it is imperative that site design professionals are an
integral part of the discussion. Unfortunately, as stated by Flohr, “Currently IPD
and BIM software are being developed by the software and construction
industry with American Institute of Architects at the helm, and landscape
architects have little to no voice in this process. To move towards integrated
sustainable construction projects, faster project deliveries, and greater design
accountability, site and building development must be incorporated. Clients
realize the benefits of IPD and are demanding BIM. Landscape architects
cannot afford to be left out of the process”. (pg. 170) This sentiment is also
echoed by Sipes as he addressed IM derivatives, “If landscape architects are
not involved with developing this definition of Site Information Models (SIM) and
Land Information Models (LIM), then architects and engineers seeking to
expand their role in a project will be the ones to do so. If that happens, the
results will be an engineer’s version of Landscape Architecture or that of an
architect”. (Sipes, pg. 16)
Page 48
47
5.0 Conclusion
There are many theories and principles that drive landscape architecture. In
addition to these theories and principles, computer-aided design has become
integral to the practice of the profession. Our society is evolving technological
faster today than it ever has. As our technological capabilities evolve so do the
complexities of the systems that sustain them. In order to design our future
spaces, computer-aided design will be critical. As important as the computer-
aided design, are the men and women who will be involved in its creation and
application. As new innovations evolve it is important that they are examined
and a discussed. It is important that site design teachers stay abreast of the
latest technological innovations, do not rely solely on professional practice to
lead them in software selection, and, most importantly, participate in the
conversation. For landscape architecture to remain relevant, it must embrace
and evolve its technological capabilities to meet that of its sister professions. To
thrive, landscape architecture must lead the way in the application of
innovations such as Integrated Project Delivery and Information Modeling. Max
Planck, the founder of the quantum theory, wrote “An important scientific
innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out”. What
will be the fate of landscape architecture?
A more robust study to include a survey of corollary fields would provide a more
quantifiable assessment of the landscape architecture innovation adoption
level and, I have no doubt, provide further substantiate my strong belief that
landscape architecture must embrace Integrated Project Delivery and
Information Modeling. Landscape architecture must not remain an island onto
itself!
Page 50
49
6.0 References
Deamer, Peggy. “Autodesk Yale University BIM Symposium.” September 16, 2010.
Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed on 16 April 2012.
ESRI. (n.d.) Geodesign. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://www.esri.com/technology-topics/geodesign/overview.html
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
National Network of Libraries of Medicine. (December 10, 1997). The Diffusion of
Innovations Model and Outreach from the National Network of Libraries of
Medicine to Native American Communities. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from
http://nnlm.gov/archive/pnr/eval/rogers.html
AIA. (n.d.). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. The American Institute of
Architects. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from
http://www.aia.org/contractdocs/AIAS077630.
Autodesk.(n.d.) IPD in Education. Autodesk Education Community. Retrieved
March 16, 2012, from http://bimcurriculum.autodesk.com/node/417
Building Smart Alliance. (n.d.). No title. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from
http://www.buildingsmartalliance.org/.
Business Dictionary. (n.d.) technology transfer. Business Dictionary.com.
Retrieved November 10, 2011, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/technology-transfer.html
Page 51
50
Cheng, Renee. (2006) Suggestions for an Integrative Education.. AIA Report on
Integrated Practice, Daniel Friedman, ed., 2006.
Design Intelligence. (2011) Landscape Information Modeling. Design
Intelligence. Retrieved March 21, 2002, from
http://www.di.net/articles/archive/landscape_information_modeling/.
Deutsch, R. (2011). BIM and integrated design: Strategies for architectural
practice. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Flohr, T. (2011). A landscape Architect’s review of building information modeling
technology. Landscape Journal: Design, Planning, and Management of the
Land, 30(1), 169-170.
George, J. W. (2009). Classical curriculum design. Arts and Humanities in Higher
Education, 8(2), 160-179. doi:10.1177/1474022209102682
Hoffmann, Sabine H. "Diffusion of Innovations." Encyclopedia of Business In
Today's World. Ed. Charles Wankel. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009. 512-
13. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.
Holness, G. R. (2006). Building Information Modeling. ASHRAE Journal, 48(8), 38-
46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Lei Feng, Xiaodan Zhao, & Yan Liu. (2010). Discussion and consideration on
teaching reform of Landscape Architecture. 138-141.
doi:10.1109/ICEMT.2010.5657685
Page 52
51
Leon, N. (2009). The future of computer-aided innovation.COMPUTERS IN
INDUSTRY, 60(8), 539-550. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.05.010
Marschalek, D. G. (1989). A new approach to curriculum development in
environmental design. Art Education, 42(4), 8-17.
Nahm, Y. -., & Ishikawa, H. (2006). A new 3D-CAD system for set-based
parametric design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 29(1), 137-150. doi:10.1007/s00170-004-2213-5
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Piegl, L. A. (2004). Ten challenges in computer-aided design.COMPUTER-AIDED
DESIGN, 37(4), 461-470. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2004.08.012
Sipes, J. (2008). Integrating BIM Technology into Landscape Architecture.
Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series (LATIS), 1-49.
Smith, D. L. (1987). Integrating technology into the architectural curriculum.
Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 41(1), 4-9.
Sutherland, I. E. (1964). Sketchpad a man-machine graphical communication
system. Simulation, 2(5), R-3-R-20. doi:10.1177/003754976400200514
Wang, T. (2009). Toward a productive and creative curriculum in architecture.
Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8(3), 277-293.
doi:10.1177/1474022209339961
Paradiso, Joseph A. "Sensor Architectures for Interactive Environments." 18 Vol.
Boston, MA: Springer US, 2009. 345-362. Print.
Page 53
52
Petersen, Marianne. “INTERACTIVE SPACES: TOWARDS A BETTER EVERYDAY?.”
Interactions July-Aug 2005: 44-45.
Page 54
53
Appendix
A. Survey
Page 60
59
B. Abbreviations
AGC Association of General Contractors of America
AIA American Institute of Architects
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASID American Society of Interior Designers
ASPE American Society of Professional Estimators
ASQ American Society for Quality
BIM Building Information Modeling
BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association
CABA Contintental Automated Buildings Association
CAED College of Architecture and Environmental Design
CAD Computer-Aided Design
CaGBC Canadian Green Building Council
CERL Civil Engineering Research Laboratory
CIFE Center for Facilities and Environment
CII Construction Industry Institute
CMAA Construction Managers Association of America
COAA Construction Owners Association of America
CSI Construction Specifications Institute
CURT Construction Users Round Table
DBIA Design Build Institute of America
DPC-SIG Project Management Institute Design Procurement Construction
Specific Interest
Group
FFC National Academy of Sciences Federal Facilities Council
GSA General Services Administration
ICC International Code Council
ICF International Center for Facilities
IFMA International Facilities Managers Association
Page 61
60
IM Information Modeling
IPD Integrated Project Delivery
LABOK Landscape Architecture Body of Knowledge
LCI Lean Construction Institute
MILCON Military Construction
MTS Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability
NAHB National Association of Home Builders
NASBP National Association of Surety Bond Producers
NIBS National Institute of Building Sciences
OGC Open Geospatial Consortium
OSCRE Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate
SBIC Sustainable Buildings Industry Council
SCIP Specifications Consultants in Independent Practice
SIM Site Information Modeling
SMACNA Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
Page 62
61
C. Definitions
Building Information Modeling (BIM) A process involving the creation and
organization of the digital representation of physical and functional
characteristics of a facility
Compatibility with existing and potential needs and experiences is a perception
of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.
Complexity in terms of the degree of understanding is a perception of adoption
in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.
Computer-Aided Design creates computer models defined by geometrical
parameters that appear on a computer monitor as a three-dimensional
representation of a part or a system of parts that can be readily altered by
changing relevant parameters. Allows testing by simulating real-world
conditions to modifiy. analyze, and optimize designs.Confirmation in the stages
of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory occurs when an individual (or
other decision-making unit) seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision that
has already been made, but the individual may reverse this previous decision if
exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation.
Decision in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory occurs
when an individual (or other decision-making unit) engages in activities that
lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation.
Early Adopters, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations
theory, are the second 13.5% of the individuals in a system to adopt an
innovation. Early adopters are a more integrated part of the local system than
are innovators. Whereas innovators are cosmopolites, early adopters are
Page 63
62
localites. This adopter category, more than any other, has the greatest degree
of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters
for advice and information about the innovation. This adopter category is
generally sought by change agents as a local missionary for speeding the
diffusion process. Because early adopters are not too far ahead of the average
individual in innovativeness, they serve as a role-model for many other members
of a social system. The early adopter is respected by his or her peers and
embodies successful, discrete use of new ideas. The early adopter knows that to
continue to earn esteem of colleagues and to maintain a central position in the
communication networks of the system; he or she must make judicious
innovation-decisions. The early adopter decreases uncertainty about a new
idea by adopting it and then conveying a subjective evaluation of the
innovation to near-peers through interpersonal networks.
Early Majority, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations
theory, is the third 34% of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. The
early majority adopt new ideas just before the average member of a system.
The early majority interact frequently with their peers, but seldom hold positions
of opinion leadership in a system. The early majority's unique position between
the very early and the relatively late to adopt makes them an important link in
the diffusion process. They provide interconnectedness in the system's
interpersonal networks. The early majority are one of the two most numerous
adopter categories, making up one-third of the members of a system. The early
majority may deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea.
"Be not the first by which the new is tried, nor the last to lay the old aside," fits the
thinking of the early majority. They follow with deliberate willingness in adopting
innovations, but seldom lead.
Page 64
63
Implementation in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory
occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) puts an innovation
into use. Re-invention is especially likely to occur at the implementation stage.
Information Modeling (IM) A representation of concepts, relationships,
constraints, rules, and operations to specify data semantics for a chosen domain
of discourse. It can provide sharable, stable, and organized structure of
information requirements for the domain context
Innovators, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations theory,
are the first 2.5%t of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation.
Venturesomeness is almost an obsession with innovators. This interest in new
ideas leads them out of a local circle of peer networks and into more
cosmopolite social relationships. Communication patterns and friendships
among a clique of innovators are common, even though the geographical
distance between the innovators may be considerable. Being an innovator has
several prerequisites. Control of substantial financial resources is helpful to
absorb the possible loss from an unprofitable innovation. The ability to
understand and apply complex technical knowledge is also needed. The
innovator must be able to cope with a high degree of uncertainty about an
innovation at the time of adoption. While an innovator may not be respected
by the other members of a social system, the innovator plays an important role
in the diffusion process-- that of launching the new idea in the system by
importing the innovation from outside the system's boundaries. Thus, the
innovator plays a gatekeeping role in the flow of new ideas into a system.
Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) A collaborative alliance of people, systems,
business structures and practices into a process that harnesses the talents and
insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner,
Page 65
64
reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design,
fabrication, and construction
Knowledge in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory
occurs when an individual (or other decision making unit) learns of the
innovation's existence and gains some understanding of how it functions
Laggards, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations theory, are
the last 16% of the individuals in a system to adopt an innovation. They possess
almost no opinion leadership. Laggards are the most localite in their outlook of
all adopter categories; many are near isolates in the social networks of their
system. The point of reference for the laggard is the past. Decisions are often
made in terms of what has been done previously. Laggards tend to be
suspicious of innovations and change agents. Resistance to innovations on the
part of laggards may be entirely rational from the laggard's viewpoint as their
resources are limited and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail
before they can adopt.
Late Majority, in the categories of adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations theory,
is the fourth (next to last) 34% of the individuals in a system to adopt an
innovation. The late majority adopt new ideas just after the average member of
a system. Like the early majority, the late majority make up one-third of the
members of a system. Adoption may be the result of increasing network
pressures from peers. Innovations are approached with a skeptical and cautious
air, and the late majority do not adopt until most others in their system have
done so. The weight of system norms must definitely favor an innovation before
the late majority are convinced. The pressure of peers is necessary to motivate
adoption. Their relatively scarce resources mean that most of the uncertainty
about a new idea must be removed before the late majority feel that it is safe to
adopt.
Page 66
65
Observability or degree to which an innovation or its results are observable is a
perception of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory. The hypothesis is
that if individuals see the success of an innovation they are more likely to adopt
it.
Persuasion in the stages of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory occurs
when an individual (or other decision-making unit) forms a favorable or
unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.
Relative advantage of the innovation in comparison to existing solutions and
practices is a perception of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.
Site Information Modeling (SIM) A process involving the creation and
organization of a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics
of the land or site
Trialability, that is, to experience the innovation to a certain degree and time
periodais a perception of adoption in the Diffusion of Innovations theory.
Page 67
66
D. Organization Overview
7group Integrative Design, green building, and Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design consultants.
American Institute of Architects (AIA) The International Clearinghouse for
Interoperability Standards and Activities in the Architecture, Engineering,
Construction and Real Estate industries.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Has taken an active role in
pioneering interoperability and BIM through developing the CIS/2 standard and
promoting its use in the structural steel design, detailing, fabrication, and
construction process. Actively engages its members and the Architecture,
Engineering, and Construction community at large to ensure that structural steel
is a leader in adoption of interoperability and BIM technology.
American Society for Quality (ASQ) ASQ’s Design and Construction Division actively
pursues a certification for Quality Managers in design and construction and
would like to include BIM and interoperability to the knowledge required of
Quality Managers in these disciplines.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) The Architectural Engineering Institute of
ASCE deals with building information models.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Develops and identifies initiatives and opportunities presented by
interoperability, BIM, and related topics affecting the HVA&R industry and
ASHRAE interests. Develops informational and educational programs on BIM and
interoperability for ASHRAE members.
Page 68
67
American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) A community of people driven by a
common love for design and committed to the belief that interior design, as a
service to people, is a powerful, multi-faceted profession that can positively
change people's lives. Through education, knowledge sharing, advocacy,
community building and outreach, the Society strives to advance the interior
design profession and, in the process, to demonstrate and celebrate the power
of design to positively change people's lives. Its more than 30,000 members
engage in a variety of professional programs and activities through a network of
48 chapters throughout the United States and Canada.
American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE) All estimating professionals may
want to get in on the BIM discussion affecting their work. ASPE Chapters will be
presenting speakers and programs to facilitate the move towards BIM.
Association of General Contractors of America (AGC) - BIMForum BIMForum is the
AGC's task force on Building Information Modeling. BIMForum's 200+ members
collaborate virtually via the online forum.
Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International) An international
federation of more than 100 local associations and affiliated organizations.
Founded in 1907, its 16,500-plus members own or manage more than nine billion
square feet of commercial properties. BOMA International’s mission is to
enhance the human, intellectual and physical assets of the commercial real
estate industry through advocacy, education, research, standards and
information.
Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC) Leads and accelerates the
transformation to high-performing, healthy green buildings, homes and
communities throughout Canada.
Page 69
68
Center for Facilities and Environment (CIFE) CIFE and Stanford have long been
pioneers in collaborative design, integrated practice, and BIM in general.
College of Architecture and Environmental Design (CAED) Located at Kent State
and offers BIM to students and promotes its use while obtaining a degree.
Construction Industry Institute (CII) Focuses its efforts on the business needs of its
members, which includes many of the largest construction-related organizations
and major facility owners. BIM is beginning to show up on their radar screen and,
therefore, into projects of CII. The emphasis of CII will be toward the strategic
business approach to BIM rather than the technology.
Construction Managers Association of America (CMAA) North America’s only
organization dedicated exclusively to the interests of professional Construction
and Program Management. The Association was formed in 1982. Current
membership is more than 9,400, including individual CM/PM construction and
program management practitioners, corporate members, and construction
owners in both public and private sectors, along with academic and associate
members. CMAA has 28 regional chapters and 42 student chapters at colleges
and universities nationwide.
Construction Owners Association of America (COAA) Committed to accomplishing
interoperability and served as one of the sponsors of the McGraw-Hill
Interoperability Study that was recently released. They educate members
through conference education programs and articles in their magazine.
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Develops and promulgates the formats
and standards that organize project and product specifications and
information. With the development of OmniClass and the IFDLibrary, CSI along
Page 70
69
with CSC is focused on supporting interoperability by providing a complete and
consistent open schema for all information used in the building process.
Construction Users Round Table (CURT) CURT’s mission is to create competitive
advantage for construction users. CURT is providing aggressive leadership on
business issues that promote excellence in the creation of capital assets and
supports BIM/VDC implementation in accord with this direction. CURT is in the
third year of an arrangement with CIFE and GSA in conducting a VDC Usage
Survey in order to gain business metrics around VDC implementation. Further
CURT has a committee focused on process transformation involving various
sectors of the industry targeting improved productivity. CURT is working in
partnership with AIA and AGC through the 3xPT initiative driving change in the
industry toward process transformation.
Contintental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) A not-for-profit industry
association that promotes advanced technologies for the automation of homes
and buildings in North America.
Design Build Institute of America (DBIA) Promotes the value of design-build project
delivery and teaches the effective integration of design and construction
services to ensure success for owners and design and construction practitioners.
FIATECH Non-profit consortium working with technologies to support fully
integrated and automated project processes.
General Services Administration (GSA) First government organization to lead the US
Government into BIM and with a primary role in promoting BIM in the entire
industry. They remain today a leader in the initiative, continually breaking new
ground.
Page 71
70
Georgia Tech AEC Integration Lab The Digital Building Laboratory is an overlay
organization that draws faculty and students from various academic units at
Georgia Tech. It is a consortium of faculty and graduate students from
Architecture, Computing, Building Construction, Civil Engineering that work in
building-related areas. It includes the staff and external relations of two current
organizations in College of Architecture, the AEC Integration Lab and the
IMAGINE Lab. The Digital Building Laboratory plans to become one of the
leading building-related research organizations in the US. It expects to build a
different set of partners that will collaborate in the development that not only
benefits the members of the DBL, but also the general impacts of construction to
all owners and clients. It draws on different types of expertise and can
undertake initiatives not accessible to other centers.
Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability (MTS) Dedicates its entire
operation to raising awareness of the positive impact that manufacturing,
promoting, and purchasing sustainable product choices has on every aspect of
our daily lives.
International Center for Facilities (ICF) Ottawa Improves the functionality, suitability
and quality of the places where people work and live, and of other constructed
assets, by focusing in particular on the development of appropriate national
and international standards.
International Code Council (ICC) - SMARTcodes™ Automate compliance checking
with building regulations, codes, standards, etc. which includes significant work
on a dictionary that can serve as a basis for other dictionary work in the US and
globally, coordination with model checking software entities and working with
BIM software developers to understand what information is needed in a BIM to
make it checkable for compliance.
Page 72
71
International Facilities Managers Association (IFMA) The world’s largest and most
widely recognized international association for professional facility managers,
supporting more than 22,655 members in 78 countries.Lean Construction Institute
(LCI) Focused on reducing waste in the industry. Provides research to develop
knowledge regarding project based production management in the design,
engineering, and construction of capital facilities.
National Academy of Sciences Federal Facilities Council (FFC) Coordinates the
Federal agencies and provides educational opportunities to all.
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Large builders of homes transforming
to BIM to optimize their processes and provide agility in delivering customized
needs of their customers.
National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) Founded in 1942, NASBP is the
association of and resource for surety bond producers and allied professionals.
NASBP producers specialize in providing surety bonds for construction contracts
and other purposes to companies and individuals needing the assurance
offered by surety bonds. NASBP producers engage in contract and commercial
surety production throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and a
number of countries.
The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) A non-profit, non-governmental
organization that successfully brings together representatives of government,
the professions, industry, labor and consumer interests, and regulatory agencies
to focus on the identification and resolution of problems and potential problems
that hamper the construction of safe, affordable structures for housing,
commerce and industry throughout the United States.
Page 73
72
Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) Helping the World to Communicate
Geographically. Provides industry standards to the International Organization for
Standardization. Recognized test bed approach.
Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) A not-for-profit, membership
funded, neutral consortium that exists to facilitate collaboration on standardized
data exchange.
PRO IT: Finnish Consortium of Modelers The objective of the broad-based Pro IT
development project, initiated by the Confederation of Finnish Construction
Industries, was to define a national data management approach and
guidelines for the construction process based on product modeling. The project
was in operation in 2002 – 2005.
Project Management Institute Design Procurement Construction Specific Interest Group
(DPC-SIG) An international organization with mission to break down barriers that
fragment the profession, improve the understanding of capital project
management, promote collaboration between capital project stakeholders,
and contribute to the professional development of our membership.
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association (SMACNA)
Participates in the effort to achieve wide acceptance of open standard IFC's
and technologically advanced tools to enable and promote growth of
Integrated Practice, where efficient collaboration among disciplines can lead
to goals of improved productivity and the reduction of errors and waste in the
construction process. Assist in the dissemination of information on IFC's, BIM and
the Integrated Practice to SMACNA contractors and the entire construction
community.
Page 74
73
Specifications Consultants in Independent Practice (SCIP) A nationwide technical
resource organization that aids design firms, agencies, facility managers, and
manufacturers in acquiring specifications from qualified writers, and allows
independent specifiers to enhance their professionalism by sharing techniques
and industry developments. Widely regarded as the voice of the specifier
community, SCIP membership includes specifications consultants and design
firm specifiers.
Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC) An independent, non-profit 501 (c)(3)
organization and a pioneer advocate of the whole building approach to
sustainable facilities. Founded in 1980 as the Passive Solar Industries Council by
the major building trade groups, large corporations, small businesses, and
individual practitioners who recognized that energy and resource efficient
design and construction are imperative to a sustainable built environment.
The Design-Build Institute of America (DBIA) Only organization that defines,
teaches, and promotes best practices in design-build. Design-build is an
integrated approach that delivers design and construction services under one
contract with a single point of responsibility. Owners select design-build to
achieve best value while meeting schedule, cost and quality goals.
U.S. Air Force Building Information Modeling for MILCON Transformation The Marine
Corps' Military Construction (MILCON) program covers the minor construction of
facilities and structures over the minimum limit as authorized by Congress.
U.S. Army - Civil Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) The Corps of Engineers with
the support of their laboratories are transforming to the use of BIM and is a
primary player in the industry transformation with products such as Construction
Operations Building Information Exchange.
Page 75
74
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) A leader among government agencies and pioneered
the linking of mission to facilities and use of facility information during the
operations and sustainment phases of the lifecycle.
Page 76
75
E. Survey Results
Page 83
82
F. Phone Survey
Page 85
84
G. Question Matrix
Page 87
86
Acknowledgements
I would be remiss, not to mention the many people who assisted me in the research
and completion of this paper. I would like to extend thanks to, Perry Howard, Kofi
Boone, Gary Clay, and Fernando Magallanes. I would also like to extend a special
thanks to Barbara Harrison and Manuel Marrero for their support, patience, and
unconditional love given me throughout my life. Thank you all.