Value proposition on interoperability of BIM and collaborative working environments

Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a u t c o n

Value proposition on interoperability of BIM and collaborative working environments António Grilo a,⁎, Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves b a b

UNIDEMI, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica e Industrial, Faculdade de Ciência e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal UNINOVA, Departamento de Engenharia Electrotécnica, Faculdade de Ciência e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Value proposition Enterprise interoperability Value level evaluation Building information modeling BIM AEC Communication Coordination Cooperation Collaboration Channel

a b s t r a c t Interoperability has become recognized as a problem in the AEC sector due to the many heterogeneous applications and systems typically in use by the different players, together with the dynamics and adaptability needed to operate in this sector. In spite of the availability of many proposals to represent standardized data models and services for the main business and AEC activities, the goal of seamless global interoperability is far from being realized. Instead of focusing only on the technological level, the authors suggest that seeking solution(s) to the interoperability problem should include an analysis of an interoperability value proposition in the AEC sector, i.e., at the business level. The model presented for measuring the impact of interoperability at the enterprise level considers the interaction type, breadth of the impact, and geographic range dimensions. A specific analysis of actual and potential value of interoperability in the AEC sector is also conducted. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The on-line economy and society is expected to undergo another wave of transformation and growth over the next decade and beyond. New economic activities will arise with new classes of networked applications and services, new forms of enterprise collaboration, new business models, and new value propositions. It is generally accepted that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is an enabler for innovation. What is less clear and controversial, however, is the changing nature of innovation and the mechanisms for catalyzing innovation. Still, it is generally accepted that in order to take full advantage of ICT, companies must increase their level of interoperability. As in many other industrial sectors, a major difficulty that Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) companies are currently facing with ICT is the lack of interoperability of software applications to manage and progress in their business. AEC organizations are being pressured by new business relationships, that is, driven by new contractual challenges such as the contractual typology of the project finance initiative (PFI), and the exchange of information and documents with new partners often cannot be executed automatically and in electronic format. This is principally due to problems of incompatibility with the

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Grilo), [email protected] (R. Jardim-Goncalves). 0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.003

reference models adopted by the software applications they are working with. This problem arises not only during the project phase, but also across the whole life cycle that includes operation and maintenance stages. To address such problems, during the past decade the need for innovation and standardization has been recognized by the AEC sector. For instance, in the United Kingdom the government set up a Construction Best Practice Programme (CBPP) and an industry-led Movement for Innovation (M4I). The Japanese Ministry of Construction has established an action program (SCADEC), whose main objective is to develop a neutral CAD data exchange format based on STEP AP202 [41], able to deliver guidelines for the interoperability of CAD files within the Japanese construction sector. The major results from such projects have pointed out that the adoption of normalized methodologies and platforms to achieve an adequate level of integration of applications and interoperable-open environments would be indispensable. Now, emerging from the various initiatives around the world, the building information modeling (BIM) approach has been seen as something that might deliver substantial gains in terms of productivity in the AEC sector. Indeed, as most of design and construction-related communication consists of the back and forth translation of ideas between the 2D representations and the reality in a 3D space, BIM allows the visualization, understanding, and construction to take place in the same 3D dimensions. BIM is promising to overcome current limitations of systems where communication takes place through 2D diagrams and text

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

(drawings and specifications), and where the introduction of CAD applications had not made a change in the essential process, since the same views and same text were still used as instructions for building complex objects. However, the BIM approach is essentially a conceptual way of managing project information. The reality shows a wide diversity of possibilities within the 3D BIM approach, highly dependent on the type of interactions between the participants of the project and the way BIM is used. These interactions can only be supported by interoperability, which leads to the research question being addressed in this paper: what is the value proposition of interoperability on the building information modeling (BIM) approach? In Section 2, we address the path of e-business and the development of e-platforms within the AEC sector. We then describe the emergence of the BIM approach and its main characteristics, along with the importance of the types of interactions and how BIM must be sustained in collaborative working environments. In the following section, the paper provides an overview of the current interoperability developments in the AEC sector, and their main challenges regarding the Web 2.0 movement and service-oriented architectures (SOAs). In Section 4, grounded on the enterprise interoperability value proposition framework, we present an analysis of the value level of interoperability on AEC, and BIM in particular. Finally, in Section 5, conclusions are presented, highlighting the importance of orienting the R&D effort and practices toward increasing the value levels in terms of interoperability in the BIM approach, with particular emphasis on the need to focus on the collaboration and channel interaction types that are likely to achieve greater value.

523

browser and receive data in a file that prints before re-introducing data manually into their ERP system [42]. One of the areas where AEC companies have been fast adopters of e-platforms is in electronic collaboration during project development. The oldest and simplest way of the collaboration function is the exchange of files through e-mail. This is a widespread way for companies to use e-platforms for collaboration in AEC. However, very sophisticated tools have emerged in the last years. Initially, the deployment of private extranets allowed disparate parties in construction projects to share information by uploading and downloading files on a central server. More recently, several commercial web-based collaborative tools have appeared in the market, with very complex and complete functions such as on-line CAD red-lining and markup, forums, logs registration, and workflow. Commercial tools like Buzzsaw or ProjectNet of Citadon are now widely used, and more recently many other Web 2.0-like tools have emerged with similar functionality. These sophisticated tools have been used in large-scale construction projects [34]. Nowadays, electronic informational, transactional, and collaborative functions are likely to occur simultaneously between companies on building or engineering projects. However, the degree of sophistication may vary, from the simple use of e-mail or having a Web page with basic information, to intense marketplace transaction or use of a complex collaborative tool with workflow and on-line CAD red-lining. Despite the availability of the technology, it is generally recognized that there are serious interoperability problems hindering further take up of electronic business tools [14,42].

2. The emergence of building information modeling 2.2. The building information model paradigm The architecture, engineering, and construction sector has embraced e-commerce and e-business, as demonstrated by case studies that illustrate the use of electronic collaborative and electronic commerce platforms by the different AEC players. These applications can be as sophisticated as the best practices found in the automotive, aeronautics, or retailing sectors, though they are much less frequently deployed, and do not use universal standards [15,16,42]. The initial use of the Internet technology for business purposes had mainly an informational function. Web pages describing companies' services and products were, and still are, the simplest and most common usage of an e-platform by AEC players. However, for many companies it is possible to find more than simple Web pages with descriptions, as some companies make available databases with sophisticated data about products. 2.1. e-Business path in AEC The electronic exchange of commercial data related to the transaction life cycle, from the request for quotation, order, until invoice, now often denominated as e-procurement and e-sourcing, lagged well behind other sectors like retailing and automotive. In reality, before the availability of the Internet as a communication network, companies used X.25 based technology for virtual areas networks (VANs) to exchange Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) messages, and there was scarce use of this transactional function in the AEC sector in the 1990s [2,6]. Its use was mainly restricted between builders' merchants and their suppliers. This has changed in recent years. The emergence of the electronic marketplaces during the early 2000s has dramatically changed the use of electronic transactions, with contractors, suppliers, builder merchants, consultants, and clients using these platforms to request quotations, orders, and invoice, for example [15,16]. However, this function is rarely exploited to its fullest. A typical reason lies in the lack of integration of the companies' internal ERP systems with the marketplaces. Thus, in such cases most of the companies type the transactional information into a Web

During mid-1990s, a new wave of ICT developments in the AEC sector started with the advent of sophisticated CAD systems, where it was possible to enrich the 3D models of buildings and structures with, in addition to vectorial data, complementary data such as physical characteristics, unit costs, quantity take-offs, etc. (see e.g. [3]). This methodology became known as the building information model (BIM). The idea evolved from CAD/CAM and later computer information manufacturing (CIM) approaches, and sought to emulate in the more fragmented and heterogeneous construction value chain, tools and management philosophies from more stable and advanced sectors such as the aeronautics or automotive industries. Although established in academia since then, the emergence of BIM in real-world projects began only after the year 2000, in some pilot projects and lately in some major projects [38]. Nevertheless, it remains a rare approach in practical projects. Thus, BIM is suitable for supporting the simulation of a construction project in a virtual environment, with the advantage of taking place in silico through the use of a proper software package. Virtual building implies that it is possible to practice construction, to experiment, and to make adjustments in the project before it is realized [30,33]. Virtual Models can be surface or solid models. Surface models are only for visualization purposes and the components of a surface model contain information concerning only size, shape, location, etc., which facilitates the study of the visible parameters of a project. This type of model has been extensively used in the AEC sector since the 1990s, mainly for marketing and aesthetic purposes. Models that contain more information than the surface models are often referred to as smart models (SMs) and are typically generated with solid modelers. Their main purpose is to allow for the simulation of much more than merely the visual aspects of a building project [30,33].

524

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

Model intelligence refers to the fact that information may be contained in a virtual 3D model. Some of this information is physical, as it will contain information about the nature of an object, such as dimensions of the object, its location in relation to the location of the other objects in the model, the quantity of objects in the model, and other parametric information about the object. For instance, considering the object “wall,” parametric information refers to the information that distinguishes one particular component from another, similar one. Indeed, walls have qualities in common, but each individual wall may have different characteristics, such as its dimensions, material (e.g. wood or concrete, etc.), or supplier information. Each aspect of this type of information can be programmed into the specific wall object so that it accurately represents what the project requires. Since this information will be contained in each of the model components (or objects), it can also be retrieved and used, and thus constitutes an SM. Solid modeling with parametric components is also called object-based modeling. Some companies in the construction material industry are producing virtual 3D components of their product lines, and these virtual components can then be used in intelligent models and carry all the manufacturers' information embedded within them [30,33]. The creation of a composed model provides another dimension to model intelligence. Various models of different components of a project can be collected into a composed model that will have the combined information from all the sub-models embedded in it. In addition to promoting reusability of its components, an advantage of a composed model is that different project team members can work on various parts of a project independently and combine their work from time to time to analyze the combined results. The architectural, structural, and HVAC models that are often produced by design consultants or specialty subcontractors who are responsible for their own specific portions of the work, can also be combined into a composite model showing the total of the project for visualization, coordination, and other purposes. A major challenge emerges, therefore, when these composite models are developed by collaborating teams using different software tools and often geographically dispersed, requiring that components, reference models, and software applications be interoperable. 2.3. BIM as a collaborative environment Building information modeling should be seen as a dynamic process rather than a model per se. The approach of developing a 3D model with project information is, by the nature of the building and engineering overall life-cycle processes, a progressive elaboration, with different functions and derived benefits. Specifically, BIM can support collaborative working environments for enabling: i) the owner to develop an accurate understanding of the nature and needs of the purpose for the project; ii) the design, development, and analysis of the project; iii) the management of the construction of the project; and iv) the management of the operations of the project during its operation and decommissioning. In the early 1990s, 3D BIM tools immediately showed great potential in their ability to communicate views of designers through visualization in the development of the project details [38]. 3D models facilitate the study of alternative approaches to design solutions through the improved ability to visualize the design proposals in the early project and make the assessment of the spaces and aesthetic finishes of the building and structure. Owners and design team members can more easily and accurately embrace the details and adjustments that should be made until the design meets the desired goals. The creation of a virtual 3D BIM may consist of multiple efforts by different team members, and thus BIM tools can assist all the parts of

this composed model, coordinated in such a way that any existing conflicts can be discovered and resolved (the process often known as clash detection). It is far more effective to coordinate these building systems using a visual approach with a 3D model, so that the location and relationships of all the components (architecture, structure, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc.) and their potential conflicts can be resolved while still in the project's planning phases. The traditional approach of layering design paper sheets on top of a light table is quite inferior to such sophisticated, automatic, and integrated clash detection. The 3D BIM also helps to visualize and develop potential solutions to the conflicts during the coordination process. The coordination of complex project systems is perhaps the most popular application of BIM at this time. It is an ideal process to develop collaboration techniques and a commitment protocol among the team members. Hence, with a complete BIM of a virtual 3D project it is possible to visualize constructability and construction sequences and thus becomes the source for an overall visual construction schedule. Since the model already contains quantitative information in its model parts, it may be linked to a cost database that produces a cost estimate based on the model quantities. Thus, the cost estimate is directly related to the content of the 3D model and will reflect changes made to the project in the model. Construction cost estimates can be derived from the model quantities throughout the development of the BIM. During the initial phase, the cost can be assessed on a conceptual level, and at a more detailed model level, the cost estimate can also become more detailed. Other important tasks that BIM tools can contribute to are the design of energy performance of a building and lighting, allowing simulation and evaluation of how alternative materials/equipments compare. It becomes possible to simulate the operation of the building and analyze the cost of the building life cycle from the early design stages. Assembly instructions can be part of the information attached to the components of the BIM, so that the visual context of the specific location in the 3D model can help with the communication of such instructions from the designers and manufacturers to the contractors. Indeed, with a complete 3D BIM it is possible to visualize constructability and construction sequences. Moreover, when specific problems arise during the construction phase, it is quite possible that the BIM may help to formulate a solution, by aiding in the correct visualization and assessment of that problem. This may lead to the need for a model showing more details in the problem area. Thus, in the construction phase the BIM again becomes the focus of communication and collaboration among all project team members. It not only enables interaction between the individual members, but also aids in their collective understanding of the project requirements and constraints. In the operations and maintenance phase of the building and structures, BIM will be available to the facility managers for operations and maintenance procedures. Nevertheless, the nature of the model and information may need to be adjusted for these purposes, and the BIM that was used during the construction phase may require some adaptations to accurately represent the “as built” conditions of the project. 2.4. Interactions in BIM Interactions are important in virtual building simulations, and various types of links may be established during the development of composed BIM models. Indeed, interactions refer to the interconnection of different sources of information. This information may be part of the 3D model, or it could be contained in another format separate from the model file itself, such as in a schedule, a spreadsheet, a database, or as a text document. In the last situation, the

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

nature of the link is automatic, and it is usually simple to edit the model object to reflect whatever changes are required in the information. Some BIM software tools provide the opportunity to change this type of information from several perspectives and in a nonstructured way. Whenever the interaction involves the components of the 3D model, a common link in BIM needs to exist, i.e. the interoperability of various models that may have been created by different software tools is required. There is great effort being made to develop standards to define interoperability between models. This means that, for a model to be able to be compatible with models created by other software tools, it is necessary for all of them to be translatable into a file format, so that all of the object's information can be transferred correctly. In most cases it is a challenge for such a translation to retain all the information that the model contained in its original native file format. Specific software tools can have a built-in capacity to ensure the ability to read and use the file format of other modelers. This is outside of any overall interoperability compliance, and generally is dictated by market demands. A number of the larger modeling software companies are now developing suites of modeling and construction-related software tools that are quite interoperable amongst them. However, most of the BIM applications of modeling and their complementary software tools only address interoperability among themselves and not in relation to other vendors' applications. The interoperability factor becomes even more acute if there is a goal of e-platforms to enhance the collaborative functions of BIM with traditional e-procurement and e-sourcing functions, where building product objects (such as windows, doors, plumbing, etc.) besides parametric 3D model information must be coupled with transactional information, as in RFP, Order, Invoice. The goal of full interoperability is far from being realized, in the AEC sector. Recent studies have uncovered the cost of interoperability barriers of the ICT systems for the construction industry. A study prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by RTI International and the Logistic Management Institute, to identify and estimate the efficiency losses in the U.S. capital facilities industry resulting from inadequate interoperability amongst computer-aided design, engineering, and software systems, estimates the cost of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry to be $15.8 billion per year [13]. The NIST study considered inefficiencies resulting from inadequate interoperability and includes manual reentry of data, duplication of business functions, and the continued reliance on paper-based information management systems. Three general cost categories were used to characterize inadequate interoperability: avoidance costs, mitigation costs, and delay costs. Avoidance costs are related to the ex-ante activities stakeholders undertake to prevent or minimize the impact of technical interoperability problems before they occur. Mitigation costs stem from ex-post activities responding to interoperability problems. Most mitigation costs result from electronic or paper files that had to be reentered manually into multiple systems and from searching paper archives. Mitigation costs may also stem from redundant construction activities, including scrapped material costs. Delay costs arise from interoperability problems that delay the completion of a project or the length of time a facility is not in normal operation. These studies are an indication of the AEC industry's inability to exploit ICT to realize its full benefits. Moreover, this problem may be more acute when compared with, for example, the interoperability problems costs in engineering and manufacturing in the US auto industry, estimated to be on the order of $1 billion per year [14].

525

3. Interoperability developments in the AEC sector Interoperability can be defined as “The ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged” [20]. Interoperability is achieved by mapping parts of each participating application's internal data structure to a universal data model and vice versa. If the universal data model employed is open (i.e. not proprietary), any application can participate in the mapping process and thus become interoperable with any other application that also participated in the mapping. Interoperability eliminates the costly process of integrating every application (and release) with other applications (and releases). Today many proposals are available to represent data models and services for the main business and manufacturing activities, and thus sustain interoperability. Some are released with international standards (e.g., ISO, UN), others are developed at the regional or national level (e.g., CEN, DIN), and others are developed by independent project teams and groups (e.g., OMG, W3C, IAI, ebXML). Most of the standard-based models that are available have been developed in close contact with industry, following an established methodology. They use optimized software architectures, conferring configurable mechanisms focused on the concepts of extensibility and easy reuse [1,7,10,35,43–45]. In an effort to provide an answer to these requirements, within the AEC context the TC184/SC4 (industrial automation systems and integration — product data representation and exchange: industrial data) of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) launched, within its WG3 (product modeling), the T22: building construction group. Under the umbrella of T22, for ISO10303-STEP, part 225 titled: “Application Protocol (AP): Building Elements Using Explicit Shape Representation” was developed. This part is now an international standard (IS) and specifies the requirements for the exchange of building element shape, property, and spatial configuration information between application systems with explicit shape representations, specifically the physical parts of which a building is composed, such as structural elements, enclosing and separating elements, service elements, fixtures and equipment, and spaces. In addition, other parts of STEP have been developed, contributing to the release of standard models related to the building and construction industry, e.g., AP228 (ISO10303-228) building services: heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and AP230 (ISO10303-230) building structural frames: steelworks [11,22–27]. A more recent example of an ISO standard for industrial building information is ISO15926, which is designed to provide a comprehensive standard for the description of process plant facilities throughout their life cycle. ISO15926 employs a generic data model that is supplemented with templates and a reference data library to support any view of an information package and the complete life cycle of a facility [33]. Also in Europe, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) has been supporting the development of STEP in the WG2 of its TC310, which is working in line with ISO. CEN/TC310 is responsible for the development of the standards required by industry for the integration in advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) systems, such as those required in the areas of Enterprise Modeling and System Architecture, Communication, Data, Information processing, Control equipment, Mechanical and System operational aspects. In other regions of the world, similar committees exist [8,11,21,22]. At the same time, the Part Library Usage and Supply, i.e., the PLUS project, has developed an exchange format for intelligent electronic catalogs, based on a common information model facilitating integration with third-party softwares. The results of this project contributed to the international standard ISO13584: PLib (Parts Library). PLib seeks a solution for an electronic catalog representation in proprietary formats, providing a tool for independent standard representation and supporting multi-representation and integration of different

526

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

supplier catalogs. It uses a consistent exchange and product modeling format, in this case based on ISO10303 STEP [12,36,40]. In the mid-1990s the Industrial Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) was created, with the purpose of enabling software interoperability, providing a universal basis for process improvement and information sharing in the construction and facilities management industries (AEC/FM). Consequently, IAI developed the International Foundation Classes (IAI/IFC) as an open standard model to allow software vendors to create interoperable applications via the IFC file format. The ISO EXPRESS language (STEP-11) was adopted by IFC to describe its models [18,19]. Objects defined in the IFC data model allow the sharing of intelligent information contained in a BIM. These objects support the entire facility life cycle from planning, design and construction, through facilities operations, management, and demolition. They represent the facilities' objects, such as doors and windows, and the abstract objects, such as construction costs. All objects can have a number of properties such as geometry, materials, finishes, product name, costs, etc., as well as relationships to and data inheritances from other objects [18]. The first version of the IFC data model was released in 1997, and currently the latest release is IFC2x3. XML-based implementations of the IFC data model are available as ifcXML. Implementation of IFC is thus based on a particular view or a combination of views of IFC that define data set requirements in support of specific industry processes, a given organization's work practice, or typical business cases. IAI has been working with the ISO in order to develop IFC as a de jure international standard, and it is currently denominated as ISO TC184/SC4 PAS 16739. There is an important effort toward BIM standardization related with its linkage to geospatial information system (GIS) developments. The first is made by IAI/IFC and their link to GIS, and the second is the open geospatial consortium (OGC) Web Standard (OWS-4/5) specification, which is looking at the relationship between GIS-BIM-CAD as one of the threads in that standard. The willingness exists that the two initiatives converge rather than create two separate standard threads. This convergence is important as building information models will define what is inside the outside skin of a building/structure, completed by the information defined in the geospatial world outside the boundaries of the facility to perform many types of analysis. This is also true in GIS systems where information from inside a building/ structure is needed in order to accomplish a proper analysis.

3.1. Interoperability challenges for AEC in the Web 2.0 era Although there is considerable effort in interoperability standards development, there still exists today a failure to deliver seamless interoperability. The AEC sector perspective on interoperability, like that of many other industrial sectors, is reductionist and unable to fulfill the promise of an interoperable business environment. Indeed, the AEC sector's efforts for interoperability have been very focused on data aspects of information systems. There is a need for AEC to extend the more technically focused notion of interoperability to cover the organizational and operational aspects of setting up and running ICTsupported relationships, i.e. beyond information systems architectures, as it should consider that these are interwoven with business processes, employees, culture, and management of external relationships, as depicted in Fig. 1 (adapted from [5]). To achieve interoperability successfully, organizations must address technological issues of connecting systems and applications, as well as how the connection between the business processes of each organization enables or hinders the establishment of the technical bonds, along with compatibility of the employees' values and culture of trust, mutual expectations, and collaboration, which overall has to be supported by informal or formal contractual agreements between the companies, which “institutionalizes” the collaboration.

Fig. 1. AEC business interoperability framework.

This implies a redefinition of Interoperability [31]: “a field of activity with the aim to improve the manner in which enterprises, by means of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), interoperate with other enterprises, organizations, or with other business units of the same enterprise, in order to conduct their business. This enables enterprises to, for instance, build partnerships, deliver new products and services, and/or become more cost efficient.” Within the AEC sector there is a recognition of the need to address a context wider than just the technological issues of interoperability on BIM. This is the case of the Information Delivery Manual (IDM) of the IAI, which considers, in addition to the IFC's standards, a methodology to support the implementation of BIM, addressing the business processes and information exchange requirements. IDM captures, and progressively integrates business processes whilst at the same time providing detailed specifications of the information that a user fulfilling a particular role would need to provide at a particular point within a project [18]. To further support the user information exchange requirements specification, IDM also proposes a set of modular model functions that can be reused in the development of support for further user requirements. IDM describes a set of process maps, exchange requirements and functional parts, and has been recognized as the key feature that makes IFCs work. However, in spite of being a valuable development, it falls short of the broader needs regarding interoperability on issues such as intangibles, e.g., culture and values, or management of contractual relationships on project development. Still, the need for addressing contractual issues has been recently highlighted [18]. Besides the need to expand the context of interoperability developments for current industrial environment, AEC agents will need to cope with further challenges that lie ahead, as the on-line economy and society is anticipated to undergo another wave of transformation and growth over the next decade and beyond, with new economic activities arising along with new classes of networked applications and services, new forms of enterprise collaboration, new business models, and new value propositions. One of the most prominent developments that has triggered the need to enrich the interoperability concept is what has come to be known in the non-scientific literature as “Web 2.0.” Regardless of its current real impact, there is clear evidence of a “spill over” of Web 2.0 type of development from the consumer into the business environment. As part of this trend, the term “Enterprise 2.0” was coined in 2006, and has been most prominently associated with the definition proposed by [32]: “Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.” According to [32], in comparison with earlier attempts to use the Web for business work, proponents of Enterprise 2.0 do not seek to impose on users any pre-conceived notions about how work should proceed and how output should be

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

categorized or structured. Instead, they are building tools that let these aspects of knowledge work emerge. This is a profound shift. Most current platforms, such as knowledge management systems, information portals, intranets, and workflow applications, are highly structured from the start, and users have little opportunity to influence this structure. Importantly, in the opinion of Enterprise 2.0 proponents, this is based on a new view of software platforms that support the changing nature of enterprises and that focus on the practices and outputs of knowledge workers. A summary of the change from Enterprise 1.0 to 2.0 can be found elsewhere [31]. Still, there is much on-going discussion about the similarities and differences between Enterprise 2.0 and the equally topical Service-Oriented Architectures (SOAs) [39], a discussion that is beginning to eclipse the discussion of “Web 2.0 vs. SOA.” Recent research has embraced the SOA/Web 2.0 approach on BIM [28], as it is technically viable to develop a BIM e-platform based on SOA and supported by a model-driven architecture (MDA) where, for example, architects and specialist designers can interact through services during a project's life cycle (mainly during design and construction phases) for the exchange of technical data (e.g. layout and properties of the rooms in the building and engineering analysis regarding air flows). The services definition can be reused in other business relationships through the e-platform as it can be reused for different BIM projects needing only minor adjustments. High-level models can be transformed to a global e-platform infrastructure and services and SOAs can be created decoupled from the lower level platforms, infrastructures and implementations, opening the way to improved interoperability (Fig. 2). Thus, functional applications can obtain seamless integration, if they have access to a pool of services and SOAs that translate the common information transaction needs between AEC parties and through service brokerage. This can currently be implemented using, for instance, EDI or XML technology on top of MDA and SOA. 4. Evaluating the value level of interoperability on BIM Since technical interoperability is today feasible, the reason behind low levels of interoperability is, as far as companies are concerned, the understanding of the value level of interoperability. Whilst in abstract interoperability is of value, the question for many companies is, how much value is there, and particularly, how can interoperability contribute to companies' competitiveness, in what areas, and how. This is particularly relevant for AEC companies on driving BIM implementations. While BIM can be restricted to inside a company boundary, due to the nature of the AEC sector, it is easily accepted by

Fig. 2. SOA-based interoperability between the HVAC consultant and architecture company services. Legend: MDA: Model-Driven Architecture; PIM: Independent Model; PSM: Platform Specific Model.

527

common sense that it is at the project level that BIM may reap larger benefits, which obviously poses greater challenges for interoperability. Moreover, whilst BIM is an overall approach, there are many functional specifications for BIM that can be implemented at different phases of the project, and that can bring distinctive benefits and costs, but that also pose different interoperability challenges. Hence, it becomes necessary to understand the value level that BIM and interoperability may bring to AEC players [47].

4.1. Enterprise interoperability value proposition Value level measures the utility that interoperability has for an enterprise in its strategic positioning and strategy, and as a consequence, how interoperability deployment is perceived and valued by clients, consumers, or other companies. To measure this dimension it is useful to cite a qualitative description by INSEAD's researchers [29]: the concept of “blue ocean strategy” and “red ocean strategy.” These authors divide companies competing on blue ocean strategies and companies competing on red ocean strategies. Companies competing on blue ocean strategies simultaneously pursue differentiation and low cost. Their aim is not to out-perform the competition in the existing industry, but to create new market space or a “blue ocean,” thereby making the competition irrelevant. They achieve this through value innovation, i.e. introducing radical innovations in the products, services, processes, etc., that are genuinely valued by customers. The blue ocean strategies differ from red ocean strategies, where most companies compete, through seeking lower cost, achieved by higher efficiency; or through differentiation, achieved by introducing marginal innovations that are targeted at specific market segments with premium price. Studies demonstrate that blue ocean strategies have a clear impact on companies' revenues and profits, greater than that of red ocean strategies [29]. This approach has similarities with the Disruptive Innovation Model [9]. While enterprise interoperability has been used as an enabler to sustain red ocean strategies, i.e., competitive strategies based on lower cost in order to obtain efficiency gain, or to sustain competitive strategies based on differentiation in order to obtain incremental value-added in products, services, and processes, it is expected that higher value will come from its ability to generate “blue ocean” strategies, i.e. value innovation derived from new forms of open collaboration and channels targeting new, global, and highly customized niches, and grounded in interoperable complex ecosystems, connecting end-users, producers, suppliers, software vendors, and telcos [31]. The report “Unleashing the Potential of the European Knowledge Economy — Value Proposition for Enterprise Interoperability” [31] presented a multi-level and multi-dimension framework for enterprise interoperability value proposition. The enterprise interoperability value proposition (EIVP) defined three levels of the impact of interoperability (Economy-society, Enterprise, and Individual). Within the enterprise level, value was dependent on the different dimensions: Interaction Type; Breadth of Impact; and Geographical Range, as depicted in Fig. 3. Interaction Type captures how the value derived from interoperability may be created and why there is the need for interoperability for improving companies' strategy. Breadth of Impact describes the scope of interoperability, ranging from an intra-organization initiative to broader situations that are industry wide or even cross-industry. Geographical Reach is about whether interoeprability is confined to a localized geographical area or whether it has an impact on a wider range, e.g. at the European or even global level. While all three dimensions are important for the value level creation, within the scope of this paper the authors will focus the analysis on how the interaction type is creating value in the AEC sector, particularly addressing the BIM approach.

528

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

Fig. 3. Interoperability value level variables.

4.2. Analyzing the value of interoperability in BIM Value creation may vary according to how AEC companies exploit the five interoperability interaction types (adapted from [37]). They are: Communication — the main purpose of interoperability is to exchange information. The informational interaction type has evolved. Currently, beyond simple Web pages with descriptions, organizations make available databases with sophisticated data about products, services, and the exchange (e.g. through business intelligence tools). Leading-edge AEC companies have been at the forefront of this type of interaction type, such as builders' merchants and material and equipment suppliers, which make available 3D CAD components to be embedded into 3D CAD applications [15,16]. The BIM approach is using the possibility of integrating 3D object components of suppliers, but greater benefit arises with the potential in their ability to communicate design intent by providing 3D views of BIM models, which through improved visualization also help the designer in the development of the project details. The 3D models facilitate the study of alternative approaches to design solutions where “what if” scenarios can easily be modelled and compared. The intent of the designers is more easily and accurately communicated to the other project team members. The value level that AEC companies obtain through this type of interaction is essentially efficiency. Coordination — the goal is to align activities for mutual benefit, avoiding gaps and overlaps, and thus achieve results efficiently. An example of this interaction type is the electronic exchange of commercial data related to the transaction life-cycle electronic commerce, from the request for quotation, order, etc. to invoicing. Most of the interoperability developed between companies and electronic marketplaces has coordination purposes. Although the AEC sector has not been the pioneer, for many years electronic trade between builders' merchants and their suppliers or between builders' merchants and their major contractors has been common [2,6]. Also quite interesting is the reasonable success of AEC marketplaces when most other marketplaces have failed [16]. Despite recent developments [46], there is still only limited ability to explore the transactional cycle within the BIM approach. However, the coordination of complex project systems is perhaps the most popular application of BIM. The creation of a virtual 3D project model often consists of multiple efforts by different team members. Either the consultants or the specialty manufacturers and subcontractors will model their area of responsibility in the project, so that these individual models may then be combined to show a more complete model of the project. All the parts of this composite model can be coordinated so that any existing conflicts can be found and resolved. This is usually known as clash detection. The value level obtained through this type of interaction is essentially efficiency, or perhaps low differentiation. Cooperation — in this interaction type interoperability is used for obtaining mutual benefits by sharing or partitioning work. This will

not only allow greater efficiency, but also the possibility to obtain some differentiation through time and cost savings. Supply chain visibility, where manufacturers and distributors allow each other's visibility of stocks and sales and production plans in order to optimize value chain stocks, is an example of the use of interoperability for cooperation. The AEC sector has also addressed some forms of cooperation. Although cooperation for AEC supply chain optimization is not common, the use of project management information systems (PMISs) is becoming pervasive in large-scales projects [34], which is evidence of the cooperation functions of interoperability. However, in AEC projects the use of PMIS is often constrained by the enforcement of specific ICT systems, namely specific technical and management software applications, which means that there may not exist a true interoperability nature. With a full BIM of a virtual 3D project it is possible to visualize constructability and construction sequences. The layout space for a particular task can be visualized to determine how multiple tasks need to be scheduled, and thus the construction schedule. Moreover, since the model already contains quantitative information in its model parts, it may be linked to a cost database that is directly related to the content of the 3D model and that will reflect changes made to the project in the model. During the conceptual phases the cost can be assessed on a conceptual level, and at a more detailed model level the cost estimate can also become more detailed. Construction cost estimates can be derived from the model quantities throughout the development of the BIM through a cooperative effort. Energy performance can thus also be predicted and adjusted in the planning phases along with the building lighting. It becomes possible to simulate the operation of the building and analyze the cost of using the building throughout its life expectancy. The value level obtained through this type of interaction is efficiency or differentiation. Collaboration — through this interaction type there is an engagement to achieve results that the participants would be unable to accomplish alone, as interoperability is a backbone for the collaboration. This implies joint goals, joint responsibilities, and working together for the creation of innovative solutions. Collaborative tools have appeared in the market, with very complex and complete functions such as on-line CAD red-lining and markup, forums, logs registration, workflow, etc., allowing true on-line product design and development [17,30]. This interoperability interaction type can enable the creation of new value propositions, grounded on value innovation, and not just on efficiency and differentiation. Within the AEC sector the approach of full BIM can be an example of the collaboration interaction type [33], although many projects designated as BIM are in reality basic 3D modeling of buildings, with coordination and cooperation, and not truly collaborative working environments. In these situations, the level of systems interoperability is constrained to conforming to a limited set of software applications, and intercompany business processes do not differ from traditional approaches [30,33]. In these cases, the value level is likely to be efficiency or differentiation. Only if BIM is immersed in true collaborative environments, can value innovation levels be expected. Early collaboration has large benefits for the planning and construction of a building project, and the development of a 3D BIM model is one of the best means of ensuring early and in-depth collaboration of the various and heterogeneous project team members on most relevant planning, design, and construction issues. The necessity to coordinate and cooperate to employ simulation techniques in the construction industry is without doubt an important benefit, b and it is certain that greater benefits emerge as participants in the project collaborate. The teamwork that is produced by the use of the BIM is centered on a 3D view of the model, and may quickly generate a feeling of mutual understanding, conversation, and communication that is further encouraged, and mutual understanding and respect becomes possible. True collaboration, interdependency, and mutual support amongst

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

team members, and work toward common team goals emerges in many BIM-based projects, allowing highly innovative building solutions rather than just efficient and similar results as in traditional approaches. Channel — in industries like software development, music/video, and other specialized and mainstream content, e.g., newspapers, the product/service is becoming digital. The consequence is that the preferred distribution channel is no longer physical, but the Internet itself. Even in industries where the product is essentially physical, the service component is increasingly delivered on-line. The Internet is also a crucial means for allowing companies to deliver more products to a wider number of people, i.e. “selling less of more products” [4]. Hence, the Web allows: 1) democratization of the production means, implying producing a wider range of products; 2) democratization of the distribution means, implying greater access to niche markets; and 3) connection of demand and offer, implying a greater focus on the niches. Interoperability can be used to support the channel, thus achieving not only efficiency and differentiation but also essentially value innovation. Although the end product of the AEC sector is physical, many sub-products during the whole life cycle are becoming digital and using the Internet as a channel. Moreover, the research that is currently being conducted on the application of SOA-based BIM in the AEC environment suggests that the evolution toward a highly distributed and fully digital ecosystem of players (i.e., architects, structural engineers, and HVAC engineers) is technically feasible. Indeed, the BIM approach can be enabled by this approach, as the development of any contractual element (e.g. design of walls, energy consumption calculation, estimates of quantities, construction schedules) can be triggered, produced, and delivered in digital form, through a services-based architecture that is automatically embedded in a BIM model [28,46]. With this approach, true value innovation can occur and major changes in the industry are likely to emerge. The results of the analysis of the value proposition of the interoperability in BIM are summarized and depicted in Fig. 4, where the x-axis represents the Interaction Types and the y-axis the Value Level. It is easily seen that interoperability may have different values as it enables different configurations and function within the BIM approach. The graph demonstrates that the higher values of interoperability in BIM are emerging with the design of new 3D-based collaborative environments sustaining creativity (and not just

529

efficiency, for example, through clash detection) and also through a full de-materialization and re-configuration of traditional processes through cross-organizational SOA-based architectures.

5. Conclusions The use of BIM as a central repository for the building project information is promising and can revolutionize information management for a project and throughout its life cycle. The model may enable better access to project information, and thus improve project understanding and control, and thereby become a powerful management tool. Within a project, BIM can be developed from a top-down perspective, that is, with the owner demanding the exact tools to be deployed by the project consortium, although this approach is unlikely to be sustainable if the owners wish that a market exists. Conversely, the BIM model can be developed using heterogeneous software tools that are interoperable with each other, which allows for a large disparity of software tools and vendors to co-exist and make markets more efficient. There is an overall consensus about the need for the BIM approach to be sustained in interoperability amongst software tools. The interoperability dimension is critical for the success of BIM, as within a project there are many different interactions between the various participants across the building project throughout the whole life cycle, i.e., from the inception phase until demolition. The actual perspective of interoperability advocates that this problem is not just an ICT issue, which is to say that it is not just about connecting information systems. In a project, interoperability also implies a richer interweaving of more than technology. It must address business processes, culture and values, and management of contractual issues between the interacting parties. These dimensions have been only partially addressed by the BIM community with the Information Delivery Manual (IDM) initiative. While it is undeniable that BIM may bring value to projects and AEC companies, this paper has emphasized the need to analyze the value of interoperability on BIM from a wider perspective. A framework for evaluating the value created by interoperability, grounded on previous work has been presented, along with the analysis of the value level on BIM.

Fig. 4. Value level of interoperability for BIM.

530

A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 522–530

The analysis presented supports the belief that interoperability in BIM can contribute to efficiency value levels, through supporting communication and coordination interactions between participants within BIM projects. If higher levels of interactions between participants emerge (e.g., through full 3D BIM cooperation), companies in building projects will likely obtain differentiation value levels, where higher cost benefits and less risk are likely to be the outcome. The paper concludes by addressing the need for interoperability in BIM to achieve higher value levels in the AEC sector, needing to depart from traditional red ocean strategies, i.e., efficiency and differentiation, and aim at blue ocean strategies, i.e. value innovation. To accomplish this, collaboration and channel interaction types need to be developed and reinforced in the AEC sector and BIM. This requires changes not only in the information systems, for example with SOAbased BIM, but also with new business processes and major changes in respect to employees and culture, along with new management of business relationships. The analysis of value levels of interoperability on BIM are of major importance in understanding how interoperability has been developed in the AEC sector, and the impact of the efforts to bring standardization to the AEC sector, in order to devise new and challenging ways to address the rise of BIM. References [1] aecXML, http://www.iai-na.org/aecxml/mission.php, last accessed in December 2008. [2] A. Akintoye, T. McKellar, Electronic Data Interchange in the UK Construction Industry, RICS Research Paper Series, London, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1997. [3] M. Alshawi, SPACE: Integrated Environment, internal paper, University of Salford, July 1996. [4] C. Anderson, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More, Hyperion, USA, 2006. [5] ATHENA Consortium, ATHENA Business Interoperability Framework, 2006. [6] A. Baldwin, A. Thorpe, C. Carter, An Internal Survey Report on the Construction Industry Trade Electronically Group — CITE, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, 1995. [7] Böhms, M., Building Construction Extensible Markup Language (bcXML) Description : eConstruct bcXML. A contribution to the CEN/ISSS eBES Workshop. Annex A. ISSS/WS-eBES/01/001, 2001. [8] CEN/ISSS, European Committee for Standardisation — Information Society Standardization System, http://www.cenorm.be/isss, last accessed in December 2008. [9] C. Christensen, The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, Harvard Business School Press, New York, 2003. [10] ebXML, http://www.ebxml.org, last accessed in December 2008. [11] ENV 13 550, Enterprise Model Execution and Integration Services (EMEIS), CEN, Brussels, 1995. [12] Co-operative use of STEP and PLib, http://www.nist.gov/sc4, last accessed in December 2008. [13] M. Gallaher, Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce, NIST GCR 04-867, 2004. [14] T. Gregory, Interoperability Cost Analysis of the U.S. Automotive Supply Chain, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce, USA, 99-1 Planning Report, 1999. [15] A. Grilo, P. Malo, R. Jardim-Gonçalves, An Assessment Methodology for eBusiness and eCommerce in the AEC Sector, 5th ECPPM Conference, Balkema, 2004. [16] A. Grilo, R. Jardim-Goncalves, Analysis on the development of e-platforms in the AEC sector, International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, Vol. 3 no. 2, 2005. [17] Grilo, A., The Development of Electronic Trading Between Construction Firms, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Salford, 1998. [18] IAI/IFC, International Alliance for Interoperability, Industrial Foundation Classes, http://www.iai.org.uk last accessed at December 2008.

[19] IFC, Ifc Model Based Operation and Maintenance of Buildings, http://cig.bre.co.uk/ iai_uk/iai_projects/ifc-mbomb/, last accessed in December 2008. [20] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY: 1990. [21] ISO 13281, Industrial Automation Systems — Manufacturing Automation Programming Environment (MAPLE) — Functional architecture, ISO — International Organization for Standardization, 2006. [22] ISO 14258, Industrial Automation Systems, Concepts and Rules for Enterprise Models, ISO TC184/SC5/WG1, ISO — International Organization for Standardization, 2006. [23] ISO TC184/SC4 Standards, http://www.tc184-sc4.org, last accessed in December 2008. [24] ISO/IEC 15414, Information Technology — Open Distributed Processing — Reference Model — Enterprise Language, ITU-T Recommendation X.911, ISO/IEC, 2006. [25] ISO1030-1, ISO 10303 Standard for the Exchange of Product Data, ISO TC184/SC4, Part 1, Overview and Fundamentals Principles, International Organization for Standardization, 1994. [26] ISO10303-11, ISO 10303 Standard for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP), ISO TC184/SC4, Part 11, Description methods, The EXPRESS Language Reference Manual, International Organization for Standardization, 1998. [27] ISO10303-22, ISO 10303 Standard for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP), ISO TC184/SC4, Part22, 2001. [28] R. Jardim-Goncalves, A. Grilo, A. Steiger, Challenging the interoperability between computers in Industry with MDA and SOA, Comput. Industry 57 (2006) 679–689. [29] W.C. Kim, R. Mauborgne, Blue Ocean Strategy. How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant, Harvard Business School Press, USA, 2005. [30] W. Kymmel, Building Information Modeling — Planning and Managing Construction Projects with 4D and Simulatons, McGraw-Hill, 2008. [31] M. Li, S. Crave, A. Grilo, R. van den Berg, Unleashing the Potential of the European Knowledge Economy: Value Proposition Enterprise Interoperability, EC, 2008. [32] A. McAfee, Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 21–28, 2006. [33] National Building Information Modeling Standard, Transforming the Building Supply Chain Through Open and Interoperable Information Exchanges, version 1.0 — Part 1 — Overview, Principles and Methodologies; NBIS, 2007. [34] P. Nitithamyong, M. Skibniewski, Success and failure factors of web-based construction project management systems: evidence from case studies, ASCE J. Construct. Eng. Managem. (January 2006). [35] Object Management Group (OMG), http://www.omg.org, last accessed in December 2008. [36] PLib, ISO 13584 Parts Library, ISO TC184/SC4, Part 102, View Exchange Protocol: View Exchange Protocol by ISO10303 Conforming Specification, International Organization for Standardization, 2000. [37] Pollar, D., Will That Be Coordination, Cooperation, or Collaboration? http://blogs. salon.com/0002007/categories/businessInnovation/2005/03/25.html#a1090, last accessed in September 2008. [38] M. Richards, Priceless Objects — T5 Process for the Single Model Environment, IAI Meeting, , 2002. [39] SOA, The Service Oriented Architecture, http://msdn.microsoft.com/architecture/ soa/default.aspx, last accessed in December 2008. [40] G. Staub, ISO TC184/SC4QC N068, Interpretation of PLib Services—Guideline for the Common Interpretation of the Services Provided by PLib Using the STEP IR, 1998. [41] T.Terai, SCADEC, a Japanese Practical Approach to CAD Data Exchange. 3rd ECPPM Conference, ISBN 90 5809179 1, Portugal, 2000. [42] The European e-Business Report 2008, The Impact of ICT and e-Business on Firms, Sectors and the Economy, 6th Synthesis Report of the Sectoral e-Business Watch, http://www.ebusinesswatch.org/key_reports/documents/EBR08.pdf, accessed in December 2008. [43] UN/EDIFACT, http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid, last accessed in December 2008. [44] W3C, World Wide Web Consortium, http://www.w3c.org, last accessed in December 2008. [45] Web Services Interoperability Organization, WS-I, http://www.ws-i.org, last accessed in December 2008. [46] Plataforma Electrónica de Contratualização Electrónica (PLAGE), http://www. plage.com.pt/, last accessed in February 2009. [47] B.Succur, Building information modelling framework: research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders, Automation in Construction, Vol. 18 Issue 3, pp 239–376, May, Elsevier, 2009.