The danger and opportunity of PDTs

You'll need to know what a PDT is before reading this post.

The idea of creating generic sheets containing high levels of detail for specific product types I have previously said is a necessary idea. We need to capture, structure and standardise information if we have any hope of automating how we process that information.

There is a danger frequently skirted around which is failing to accommodate the capabilities of software when developing standards. This situation is created by the entirely understandable principle of not wanting to be software specific, which is a fine (emerging) tradition that we can continue. This doesn't mean that we have to create standards that aren't fit for purpose, and let's be clear, I believe that the PDTs will be fit for purpose. Software behaves in a few general ways that are predictable and can be accommodated for.

The problem

1. Software is a machine

A really hard part of using computer science to solve problems is predicting how the user will use the software and how this compares to what's achievable by computers. Computers can beat the best chess players, because there is an underlying logic there that it can work with. Computers can't understand speech perfectly or recognise birds reliably, because there is a vast array of greys, they need to make sense of something before being able to process it which they find hard. Whereas with the chess example the 'sense' has already been defined by the rules of the game. These rules are discreet and can be expressed mathematically. The thing to take away from this is, to know what PDTs need to do, we need to know that computers can do with them.

2. Requirements are hard to capture

Finding solutions for problems using computer science is hard, and PDTs are no different, it's entirely possible that we will only know what we need them to do once they're developed. But hey, that's why we have version control, so that we can create updated versions. The thing to take away from this is that in order to use PDTs effectively, we need to know what they will be used for.

The solution

Clean inputs

Ensuring that PDSs' are filled out consistently will allow them to be computer processed most effectively. The restriction of inputs into PDSs' may be feasible, or using protected letters e.g. a comma means there are multiple items in this field and therefore this field should be treated as a list. Another example is na. n/a, N/a, N/A, not applicable, not aplicaable etc etc etc. If the inputs are clean and standardised, through whatever methods, then you can rely on a computer to process that information effectively. If not you will get spurious information that will require you to manually process the information to clean the data so that the computer can use it. A real waste of time and money.

Wide consulting

This is already being done in the quarters that I am aware of, but is vital. Every discussion I've had regarding PDTs has ended up with a group of us trying to imagine what stakeholders who aren't present will use them for. Luckily we have representatives from the key stakeholders present at our Landscape Institute BIM working group meetings, so that works very well in capturing those requirements. You need someone present who isn't imagining what something might be used for, but knows. There is no such thing as a construction generalist, so we are required to consult. The danger is that otherwise, the PDT is not fit for purpose. 

Conclusion

PDTs will be fit for purpose, because of the number of intelligent, well informed and experienced individuals involved with them. However, there are pitfalls and anyone could fall into them.

Making BIM objects for manufacturers

Having the good fortune to be working on the product data templates on behalf of the Landscape Institute and working in a project environment with Revit being used on landscape I have a pretty niche experience of creating and using content within Revit specifically for the landscape.

There are more and more products being developed by manufacturers, either themselves, or through another agency. We're doing that ourselves. If you are going to go through another agency, or do it yourself. Please please please speak to someone who is using the software in landscape.
If you don't, the model that comes out of the other end could well be useless.

Your objects, created in whatever software, need to be fit for purpose. That means they need to have the right content in the industry standard format (or be updatable so that they can). They need to work in the software as they're used by professionals. This means, no dumb, flat, or 2D blocks on the one hand and no hugely flashy and impressive models that severely degrade the performance of your computer. Or at least considering these various criteria.

Sustainable Sites Initiative, a LEED/BREEAM for landscape?

I've been writing a few blog posts and then for one reason or another not posting them. However, this post has three of my favourite topics in one, so it's a must for me. Politics, systems and the landscape. Awesome.

SITES aka the Sustainable Sites Initiative, now in version 2 is a credit scoring system akin to LEED and BREEAM that seeks to provide true sustainability assessing criteria upon developments. The charges leveled against all such systems is that they are fundamentally blunt instruments. In other words, they miss the nuance that can provide true measurements of whether a development is truly sustainable or not. I've not made my mind up about SITES, but it is developed by the American Society of Landscape Architects, the United States Botanic Garden, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at the University of Texas at Austin so I'm expecting something good. To be level headed about this, with these credentials I would expect these stakeholders' perspectives to totally ignore the impacts of economics. I don't know if that's fair or not. From my perspective of the sustainability debate, social and environmental sustainability are always trumped by economic sustainability. Naive I know, but for me, any classification system has to acknowledge that imbalance, not rage against it or meekly comply with it, but tacitly and clearly deal with it...

It's been in development since 2006 and version 2 was released earlier this year so I don't feel like I've missed the party too much on this one.

Finding the information

Okay, so first of all, how easy is it to get hold of the information. First of all, the reference guide costs $75. Part of getting any standard adopted is knowing who to charge. Charging the casual reader like myself to get an understanding of what you're trying to achieve... not a great start. Still, you get the rating system and a scorecard, so theoretically you could go ahead and score any development without paying a cent, but end up with weird results, because you didn't use the reference guide... Not sure I understand the logic.

The rating system

Okay, let's have a look under the hood. I've got the rating system and the score card. Ah ha, I need the reference card to be eligible to test my site. Well kind of, if you look at the assessment criteria in the light blue filled cells that have hatched out the question mark and no columns, these are mandatory requirements of the standard.

What areas are being tested?

1. Site Context
2. Pre-design Assessment & Planning
3. Site Design - Water
4. Site Design - Soil & Vegetation
5. Site Design - Materials & Selection
6. Site Design - Human Health & Well being
7. Construction
8. Operations & Maintenance
9. Education & Performance monitoring
10. Innovation or exemplary performance

Reading the Introduction

The introduction is always the sales pitch. The message I'm getting is definitely a forward looking, disaster averse attitude underlined by a thorough understanding of the systems that are impacted by development. Not really surprising to see this attitude given the involvement of Landscape Architects.

In contrast to buildings, built landscapes and green infrastructure have the capacity to protect and even regenerate natural systems, thereby increasing the ecosystem services they provide. These services are the beneficial functions of healthy ecosystems such as sequestering carbon, filtering air and water, and regulating climate. Their economic value is highly significant, yet the cost of replacing these functions is rarely reflected in conventional decision-making.

The central message of the SITES program is that any project ... holds the potential to protect, improve, and regenerate the benefits and services provided by healthy ecosystems. 

Sadly it doesn't quantify these economic values, I think whenever you're discussing economics, hard figures are always going to beat assertions. Nevertheless, I totally agree with the sentiment. Let's push on.

Ooo shiny principles

I do like a good set of fundamental principles, they scream landscape architecture at me, being a Landscape Architect that's hardly surprising. "Do no harm has an air of religiosity about it... let me check..oh no, sorry, the hippocratic oath no less, I quite like being the idea of doctors of the planet.

• Do no harm.
• Apply the precautionary principle.
• Design with nature and culture.
• Use a decision-making hierarchy of preservation, conservation, and regeneration.
• Provide regenerative systems as intergenerational equity.
• Support a living process.
• Use a systems thinking approach.
• Use a collaborative and ethical approach.
• Maintain integrity in leadership and research.
• Foster environmental stewardship.

Where and When to use the standard

Basically it covers every sort of development on land that you can think of. It's interesting to note that its remit ends (or is that begins) at the building envelope.

For sites that include buildings, the SITES v2 Rating System focuses on the area from the building skin outwards

Right... that's quite enough of that... back to real work. I'll review the individual chapters soon (I really mean that, I will)

Stop saying BIM Model!

I had this pointed out to me by Carl Collins at Arup Associates and now I cannot unsee it. When we say "BIM", anyone with a clue is saying Building Information Modelling, or Building Information Model. Occassionally, and let us be clear, only to muddy the waters, people mean Building Information Management or Maintenance which is unhelpful at best. So when you are saying BIM Model, you are saying Building Information Model Model. It's a bit like saying PIN Number or the River Avon. I can forgive, if not forget, so long as you know that you're doing it.

It's a bit like the how many dimensions that exist. Physicists suspect more, but have only discovered four. We've left them in our wake with 11 dimensions. If as I suspect, these are not intended to be actual dimensions, then pray tell what is 1D and 2D BIM? ... Anyway...

MIT Cityscope, technology enabled stakeholder engagement

Engaging with stakeholders such as politicians, developers and the community can commonly be a challenging process. Taking steps to ensure that these stakeholders can truly grasp exactly what development looks like, what its effects would be and critically how malleable these designs are in the early stages is I think a real oppotunity for, and I hate this word usually, the deomcratisation of development. 

There's been a lot of work done along the lines of projectors and the Kinect (other motion sensing input devices are available). They use RFID tags as well. Great stuff. 

Projectors and 3D Models can be combined to make some really engaging scenes

Twitter Activity

Google Satellite Map overlay

Windflow Analysis

BIM Book Author

“I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.” - Douglas Adams

I jest, I'm really excited about writing the BIM book for Landscape. The problem isn't the writing, the problem is finding the right people to talk to. Too many of the BIM books that I've read haven't engaged with the people that the book affects. Therefore, I have made it my mission to get in front of as many main contractors, civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, ecologists, arborists... the list goes on.

I'm also trying to find case studies for the book. I expect to beating them off with a stick. We will see.

BIM Level 2... I can tell you what it is!!

There has been a lot of handwringing, heavy frowns and hairs that were once full of colour falling out or going grey over the UK Government Construction Strategy's requirement for meeting BIM level 2 by 2016. There was good reason for that. The definition of level 2 originally looked like this:

"Managed 3D environment held in separate discipline “BIM” tools with attached data"

Which is a problematic definition in several key ways. It's vague at best for starters... it's also quite prescriptive. So the worst of both worlds then. Highly open to interpretation on one hand, and restrictive by making quite clear requirements on the other.

Okay, so that needs explaining.
Reasons it's vague
What's a "BIM" tool? There are currently 550 definitions of BIM according to the BIM USE Ontology by Ralph Kreider. So that really doesn't help.
Attached data. What's that? What data is that? Who is it for, are they expected to be able to use it outside of the discipline. How is it attached? Is it linked, federated, associated, what what what?!!?

Reasons it's Prescriptive
A Managed 3D environment. A managed environment is one thing, where all information is brought together digitally. You can do that without compatibility issues because you don't try to view the information simultaneously. However, a managed 3D environment implies that you can visualise all geometry regardless of its origin. This is practicable easily within Architecture. It is possible for infrastructure designs. For everything else, less so.


Instead of this difficult to work definition... now we have the SEVEN PILLARS OF BIM WISDOM!.
These are:

1.    PAS 1192-2:2013                     - How to digitally manage a project
2.    PAS 1192-3:2014                     - How to digitally manage a facility
3.    BS 1192-4                                 - How to effectively share information digitally
4.    BIM Protocol                            - The legal underpinning of BIM
5.    Government Soft Landings      - Ongoing support from designers post completion
6.    Digital Plan of Work                - a unified plan of work that spans all disciplines
7.    Classification                            - What is classified as what

It is worth noting that 3 has, I have heard, been rushed through public consultation and at the time of writing the digital plan of work and the classification systems are undergoing development.
However, having studied these emerging standards in detail I am confident that they are much more fit for purpose than a single vague and prescriptive sentence.


For the post that inspired me:
 http://blogs.bsria.co.uk/2014/06/18/the-seven-pillars-of-bim-wisdom/

Landscape BIM Product Data Templates

I've been asked (well actually I asked) to help review the PDTs for Landscape at the Landscape Institute, and having had a preliminary inspection I am inspired to make the case for them.

One of the big BIM benefits has to be persistent and consistent data. We come across persistent data every day of our lives, we expect individual ATMs to be able to access our bank accounts and produce money regardless of who we bank with (well we do in the UK). We also expect to be able to log in to our email on our phones, at home or on the move. There's a lot of underpinning work that supports all of these things. Now let's compare with a landscape specification.

Assuming that the specification is complete, works done and handed over, but remedial work needs to be done. You're a temp working for the company doing the remedial work and it's your job to find out what plants it is you need to replace some recently deceased one. You will need to find out who holds the landscape design documentation, not generally, not usually, but actually, who holds it, for this project, right now. Then you will need to go to them or have them sent to you, you might need permission to access their physical files and you might then be required to physically go to the archive and dig out the document. Of course, back then we didn't have a filing system so it's in one of those boxes... you get the picture. Things get lost very easily and it gets chaotic.

In a perfect BIM world. You could find out who holds the specification, get a link to the document, get a log in for their extranet site. Download the file and open it in excel or equivalent software.

So that's clear. Now, what if, following these remedial works the specification needs to change? I think you can see the difference.

Product Data Templates are the first step to  creating a consistent and persistent store for your project's specifications and other data. These PDTs indicate what can be stored and how. Once these have been complete, the job will be to create databases that hold this information for people to easily create, view and edit specifications in a fraction of the amount of time it currently takes.

For more information on PDTs check out.
http://bimtalk.co.uk/

Landscape BIM & Revit now 900% more efficient (in places)

I often come into contact with consultants who work in the external sphere: Geomatics Engineers, Landscape Architects, Civil Engineers and the like who have been told they need to start using Revit. There is a lot of reticence surrounding this idea, particularly because the software is in no way designed for external design, in fact, designing assets for the external sphere has been explicitly ruled out by the powers that be on the Revit wishlist.


And working with Landscape Reviteers I know first hand a lot of the problems that can arise when implementing this software. Revit is, out of the box and after basic training next to useless for the total novice who works outside of the building envelope.

Furthermore, Revit is not BIM and anyone who says that it is has missed at least half of the message of BIM in the UK.

However, and it is a big however, there are ways to make Revit work for the external sphere. And using some programming skills, I have just managed to make a 900% efficiency gain on some Landscape Architecture workflows within Revit. This wouldn't be possible without the experience of Revit at Colour Urban Design Ltd.,  nor would it be possible without being able to program. I guess I'm showing off really, but who can blame me!

So I'm still not going to tell you that Revit is the perfect software for external works, (but neither does that perfect software exist), but if you do decide to take the plunge (because, after all, there are still a lot of benefits to Revit), then I suggest factoring in a more complex set of requirements than an Architect would need to. Software vendors will always tell you that implementing new software is more than just buying the stuff, and they're right, but many companies muddle through with trial and error. That just won't work with Revit.

OGC's new Urban Planning group releases draft charter

I have just submitted a comment on the following key issue for interoperability.

OGC's new Urban Planning group releases draft charter

Data structures are simultaneously very deep and very wide. There are more professions, professionals, sectors and requirements than a single body can hope to create a set of super specifications for.

Therefore, to fulfil the group’s goal of:

3.       Avoid placing artificial technical barriers on use of Urban Planning data.

I propose that all software companies should commit to opening their data structures transparently and completely, as this artificial barrier of opacity is the single biggest barrier to interoperation within the various sectors that these companies encompass. 

when to BIM? a Level of Definition question

BIM in this blog means 'use Revit'. (Hey, it's shorthand) If you don't like that, imagine that instead of saying 'when to Revit', I said 'when to begin cumbersome, intensive, information rich modelling and specifying'.

Now where do I put it

The question of when to go into high level modelling software is a tricky one. But it needs to at least be asked and marginally answered simply to manage costs within your organisation.

I have spoken with MEP Engineers who have modeled their entire work before they have even been awarded the contract, and occassionally, as you might expect, they don't win the contract. That would upset me and it upsets them, but with the combination of human nature and the software to hand it is tempting to try and 'get it right' first time. Of course, when it comes time to make amendments, it can be more work to undo what has already been done to a higher level of detail than if it was done at a lower level of detail in the first place.

The problem has to be the detail. It's easy to imagine that a low level of detail is less work than a high level of detail. So for example, an illuminated bollard would be less work if it was just a blob called 'illuminated bollard' than if said bollard were finished to a high level of detail including fantastic geometry, textures, scheduling and manufacturer's information. However, that isn't even the problem because designers and engineers may have only one copy of a model for a given object, so they just sling 'it' in. The implication is that this is bad LoD practice, because you need to clearly communicate to what level of resolution a given design has been taken. That obviously means more work initially creating more models of the same thing at different levels of physical detail (never mind the information). However, what that would produce is a much clearer design that a project manager could examine and understand where more work needs to be done or perhaps conversely, less work needs to be done, because the project isn't at the degree of resolution that the designer has supposed.

Just to turn that on its head. When bidding for work visualisations need to look as good as possible. This invariably means in the minds of designers that the model should be in as high a level of detail as possible. So what do you get? You use the same models that you've previously prepared and drop them in, with all the high level of detail joys that they bring (or don't, depending on the model object). This is sowing a minefield for future design of that project. Leaving in legacy, highly detailed objects at conception phases could lead to all sorts of problems founded on the assumption that the model is already at a high level of completion, or perhaps the object is just 'lost' and inadvertantly gets priced. There really are so many things that can go wrong that I won't go into it in any great depth, mainly because we'll need to start handing round the brown paper bags to breathe into when we collectively hyperventilate. Needless to say, we've intentionally introduced a false assumption into the model and that can lead to problems.

There are of course answers to these problems, and it isn't the answer that I'm looking at here, but the problem. Your answer needs to fit your company based on profession, company structure, project team, client and culture. Ultimately giving more strings to the bow of project leaders is my aim, I don't subscribe to the belief that there is one 'ideal' way of going about BIM. Each project is different, each project team is different, and the power to adapt quickly is the most vital.

BIM clarity. How to spot a BIMbo

I strive to be honest and clear when talking about BIM. The BIMbos who, flouting British cultural rules of humility, flaunt their BIM wares and totter about on a sense of superiority appearing much taller than they really are used to have me mesmerised and a little afraid. What was it, I would wonder, that they know that I don't know...
No longer! Now I see through the equivalent of the fake tan and the impossibly high heels.

First caveat: Not every BIM expert is a a BIMbo, there are still many experts whose opinion you can trust. You just need to know the difference between a BIMbo and a real BIMmer.

How to spot a BIMbo:

What they'll say: "We're level 3" that was easy. The most unambiguous load of tripe, the technology isn't there so how can you do it? Answer, you've been BIMbo'd.
"We have BIM software" ignore the functionality, there's a much quicker way to tell, simply ask " how well does it interoperate with other software packages" then, if they don't come clean say, "okay, show me". If at this point they start to sweat profusely from every pore. You've got a BIMbo.
"ROI of xxx%" Simply ask, "how was this calculated?". If they haven't recorded the differences in costs between a serious quantity of BIM projects and non BIM projects, or if they haven't accounted for training or ongoing software costs. You've got a BIMbo.
What a BIMbo will and won't say: They won't say, but will strongly imply that BIM is software. They'll talk about BIM, a BIM, the BIM, but never consider the process. I'll let you off if you're not in the UK BIM industry, but only just. Processes are vital to achieving the cost benefits of BIM.
I'm sure the BIMbo will raise its ugly (sic beautiful, but hollow) head sooner or later, and then I'll be back!
Now I have some hard manual labour to do for my weekend. Dig dig dig.

Second caveat... actual bimbos I quite like.

Landscape Infrastructure

Pierre Bélanger's PhD Thesis on another name for Landscape Architecture (the more the merrier huh). Landscape Infrastructure Excellently crafted, well penned. Does what PhDs seem to do a lot and meanders between topics a fair amount, but I can forgive that, because it is accessible and interesting to read.

Revit for Landscape - Training

If you're thinking of going BIM, you might have thought about Revit, because it's BIMmmy. I will warn you now, whatever software you're using, you might have a couple of workarounds right?! That's nothing compared to using Revit for Landscape Design. You have been warned... question is, how attractive is the BIM prize. Oh, and don't bother with landscape plugins for Revit, they're essentially window dressing. Revit for Landscape Training from our friends in Norway

Autodesk for Landscape ... or.... or....

If you're in Landscape and you want to 'BIM'. You need to know your position within the software matrix. It looks something like this:

Autodesk and Bentley have the widest offering. Covering GIS, Parametric Architectural Modelling, Civils software and Clash detection. The draw for Autodesk products is the offering of planting plugins (and perhaps the fact that their software is the industry standard in the UK, see below). If perhaps in their infinite wisdom Bentley one day decide to let academics use their software for free then perhaps one day the UK will use their software.

National BIM Report 2013

The software challenges facing Landscape

Coming from a technical angle Philip has the greatest understanding of the challenges facing Landscape BIM that I've seen so far.

Certainly worth a read.

http://philipbelesky.com/posts/adapting-computation-to-adapting-landscapes/

What the BIM

A lot of people suffer from BIM blindness, it's a lot like snow blindness, but instead of being blinded by an excess of reflected light, it's an excess of information (often contradictory, but always certain of its veracity)