My seventeen year old son, a junior in high school, is in the midst of his PSAT's, SAT's, ACT's and all manner of prep for what will largely determine his college choices next year. For the benefit of my international colleagues - these are standard exams in the US that are used by our colleges and universities to determine a student applicant's suitability for enrollment. An exam score is not the only factor considered when a college accepts or rejects a student's application, but it is unquestionably one of the most important factors informing their decision. The higher the student's score, the further down the road he is to "Accepted" at his college of choice.

So knowing that I'm a BIM-for-Construction geek, you can see where this is going.  Thankfully (and I mean that on multiple levels, :)) there are now many builders around the world with deep experience in BIM. And there is a rapidly growing appreciation for that expertise within the owner/developer community. But when choosing a contractor how does an owner ascertain the difference between a builder who talks a good BIM story (my son would call these firms, the "posers") and one who actually practices what they market (continuing with my family's vocabulary...my dad would call these firms, the "genuine article")? You have to admit, in the pursuit phase a poser can make his facile stuff look pretty good.

Well if the owner is the equivalent of the College Admissions Office - deciding who to accept and who to reject - then the pursuing contractor is the equivalent of the student hoping to score well on the entrance exam. Don't we need some kind of scoring mechanism so that the posers and the genuine articles are easily differentiated? The manufacturing supply chain did this with ISO9000 in their pursuit of constantly improving quality. The software industry did this with CMM in order to bring some science to bear in qualifying vendors and software outsourcers. (Version 1.0 of the Capability Maturity Model, or CMM, was developed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. SEI continues to expand the model for process improvement.  www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi). And, perhaps closer to all of us, the US Green Building Council did this with LEED rating systems.

What do you think? I'm asking builders, architects, owners/developers, engineers, construction managers, and subcontractors alike. Should we leave one's "BIM Maturity" or "BIM Rating" open to persuasive argument, or should we entertain the idea of an independent rating or certification? Such a score would not be the only factor considered when an owner awards a contract, but it could be one of the more important factors informing their decision. The higher the contractor's score, the further down the road he is to "Awarded." 

I know my son wishes he could talk his way into Dartmouth. And there is a reason it doesn't work that way.

It never fails. I will travel to an industry event somewhere in the world and a builder will ask, "How does BIM in construction differ in ‘Country-X' versus here? Are builders there farther along the adoption curve or behind us?" 

A complete answer to that question is going to offend someone because some region/society/group is always "leading" and some other is always "trailing." My usual answer is, "Go there yourself and find out." (Which, I've learned, is equally unpopular, but it does shorten the conversation.) There are, however, interesting characteristics associated with those countries whose constructors lead this trend. And there are certain characteristics associated with those regions that lag the pack. On a recent plane ride I made some notes, and in this post I offer my list.

Characteristics That Influence International Leadership

in Virtual Construction

(in no particular order)

A Society's Litigiousness

Industry & Higher Education Partnerships

Degree to Which Competition is Open/Transparent

Culturally Programmed Problem Solving:  Plan versus Experiment

Ratio of Government-to-Private Sector Spending and Degree of Regulation

Before discussing a few of the above characteristics, I'd like to point out some notably absent traits. Like a country's construction market size. Or the customary role of the Architect (which varies widely around the world). Also notably absent from my list is whether a country is home to a leading BIM technology company. (Leave it to a technology person like me to notice...)

So now to the list. I hope the influence of each Characteristic is self-explanatory. You can probably guess what constitutes good and what constitutes bad on each scale.  So I won't take the time to discuss them all here. But I will comment on two of my favorites.....

Litigiousness plays out much as you might guess. If the project team habitually relies on lawyers to solve their problems, there is not much incentive to drive new methodologies like Virtual Construction into the project. Highly litigious societies are held back, and less litigious societies have a better chance of leadership. This holds true up to a point. Taking the USA (definitely a litigious society) as an example, it appears that decades of legal fees and client dissatisfaction have driven the industry to a tipping point. The backlash is led by a super-involved generation of owners whose appetite for positive change is accelerating the adoption of BIM. So too much of a bad thing can eventually lead to a good thing!

One's approach to problem solving has a big impact on Virtual Construction leadership. Whether we are talking about a region, a country, a culture, or a single construction firm there are norms associated with the way they routinely approach problem solving.  On my scale, there are ‘planners' at one end and ‘experimenters' at the other. And when it comes to Virtual Construction, experimenters are leading. The reasons are entirely clear as construction projects are complex undertakings involving many disparate firms and interests. Combine that with the relative infancy of BIM in construction and you can appreciate that one can plan only so far ahead. Those implementers who cannot take the first step without a three-year roadmap immediately become non-implementers. The experimenters, however, are undeterred. They try things one step at a time and course correct as they go. The time for long-term planning based on codified experience and intellect will come, but right now international leaders are experimenting their way forward, and it is producing great results.

mds

I received an e-card this week that made quite an impression on me, and I'd like to share the content with you.  It's something I'll take into 2009, and maybe you will too.  The e-card was from Tocci Construction of Woburn, MA.  The author penned a smartly-modified excerpt from "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas," and this particular version went something like this (mod's in parentheses):

"And the Grinch,

with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow,

stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so?

It came without (lawyers). It came without (claims).

It came withoug (fighting, barriers, or blame).

And he puzzled and puzzled ‘till his puzzler was sore.

Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before.

What if (Construction), he thought, doesn't (have to be war).

What if (Construction), perhaps, means a little bit more."

**Dr. Seuss

Tocci is referring, of course, to their IPD project to build Autodesk's AEC headquarters in Waltham, MA in partnership with Kling-Stubbins and Autodesk. The e-card concludes, "After working this way, we have come to a conclusion similar to that of the Grinch, and our heart has grown three sizes."  I think the story just says a lot about the state of this industry and the huge possibilities that lie ahead.  Hats off to the project team and continued success in 2009!

Happy Holidays,

 mds

p.s. Tocci and Kling-Stubbins are not using Vico's software on the Autodesk HQ project, and I just wanted to point that out so it doesn't appear that we are somehow "patting ourselves on the back."  My mention here is only meant to congratulate a progressive team on breaking new ground and sharing the experience with those of us who are not involved.  That... and I got a huge kick out of their e-card!

p.p.s. I'll be attending the AGC BIMForum in La Quinta the 7-9th of January.  Let's be sure to catch up there!

Because Vico is a venture-funded company, I spend a good deal of time interacting with venture capitalists including our current investors and many others. And I make it a point to listen to the buzz du jour in the VC community.

During the second week of October, while the country's financial crisis was monopolizing headlines, Sequoia Capital, a large and prestigious VC firm headquartered in Silicon Valley, called a mandatory meeting of CEO's from their portfolio companies. Within hours the content of that meeting was buzzing around the internet like pics of Brittany's shaved head. The now-infamous Sequoia meeting delivered an urgent message aptly summarized by one of the many Powerpoint slides (all of which are now posted on at least three different internet sites): Get Real or Go Home.

Their point being... (a) The financial crisis is a deep and meaningful one, and (b) no one is sure where the bottom is, and (c) the correction will be a long multi-year process, not a V-shaped recovery, so (d) companies must act decisively to ensure their survival. Further, they predict many companies will under-react and do so in pitifully insufficient cycles that amount to a pre-ordained death spiral. Wow, and I had thought Jim Cramer's words were gloomy that week!

In the days to follow dozens of venture investors and financial guru's, all of whom have forgotten more about derivatives and high yield spreads than I'll ever know, weighed in on the Sequoia message. It was Kubler-Ross' five stages of grief right there on the internet: Denial - Anger - Bargaining - Depression - and Acceptance. I think the "Bargaining" was most entertaining... and it's at this stage that most seem stuck today.

So why the Sequoia backstory?  With so much attention paid to the financial crisis, and specifically the impact it will have on the Construction industry, I wanted to cite one slide in their deck that struck me with keen relevance to my customer's business as well as my own. It read simply:

• Manage what you can Control
• Focus on Quality
• Lower Risk
• Reduce Debt

I think of those four points in the context of the progressive, proactive builders out there who saw lean times coming and invested in a strategy to differentiate themselves.  There is a strikingly un-gloomy picture here for those firms. Owners are learning the benefits of BIM and seeking out expert firms. Project teams are exploiting BIM's advantages at more than just the design/documentation stage. Alternate delivery systems are on the rise and so very well aligned with BIM, collaboration, and broadly shared responsibility. Place these trends in a tightening construction economy, and what you have is an environment where the differentiated builders win, and the pack loses. Technology is not the only answer to differentiation, but....man, is it ever a good one right now. A well executed BIM strategy for builders translates into the same actions Sequoia is urging its technology CEO's to take. Manage what you can Control. Improve Quality. And Lower Risk.  (Sorry.  BIM can't help you with the "Debt" part... at least not directly).

mds

I would like to use this blog as a place to discuss the Agenda of Virtual Construction™, or as my friend, Jerry Laiserin, would put it…. BIM-4-Builders™. (I really like that, Jerry. I wish I had thought of it first.) Webster’s defines “Agenda” as a list of items of business to be considered and discussed at a meeting. It’s true that the BIM wave is sweeping over the AECO industry, and it’s also true that there is no shortage of items to be considered and discussed relative to the impact of BIM on the tasks, deliverables, interactions, and processes of building design and construction.

Topics to be discussed on The Agenda range from changing individual workproduct to overhauling project team processes in our industry. And here I say “our” industry because we’re all in this together: planners, architects, engineers, contractors, managers, subcontractors, owners, and the technology providers who serve them. Any one party who thinks they have all the answers simply doesn’t understand the complex fabric of technology, expertise, responsibility, risk, and economic reward (we hope) associated with creating the built environment.

With your participation, we’ll use this blogspace to tee up the facts, controversies, and unknowns that surround the undeniable movement called BIM. To be fair, I should state one bias that will pervade my thoughts and comments. You are welcome – in fact, encouraged – to add your comments on the broader spectrum, but I see most issues through the lens of the builder or the owner. My company is focused on the construction side of BIM, and as such I can’t help but color my opinions with the hues of a builder. So without apologizing for my own bias, I invite you to participate with me and the Vico Team in The Agenda.

BIM-4-Builders™ is a trademark of Jerry Laiserin, 2008. Virtual Construction™ is a trademark of Vico Software, Inc. As far as I know, no one has trademarked “BIM,” but Autodesk should have.