The Commercial Real Estate Revolution

Here is a scary thought for architects. What if contractors and sub-trades take over more of the design responsibilities enabled by BIM?

I attended an AGC BIM Forum this summer and heard that very sentiment. These contractors and subs said, “If architects don’t begin to behave more collaboratively then all we really need them for are schematic design models, we’ll be to do the rest ourselves.”

Those sentiments were precipitated by a frustrating presentation by three architectural firms to a forum of contractors and subs. During this presentation the architects presented a traditional role of controlling the design process, owning the documents and keeping clear separation between providing design intent and the contractor providing means and methods. In addition, when an architect in the audience shared their expanded role with BIM, the blurring of roles and the positive benefits it provided their client – this panel challenged both the validity of their claims and questioned why they ventured into collaborating deeply on the means and methods of construction.

This exchange represents a crossroads for architectural firms that could determine the industry’s future.

Architectural firms can view BIM as an opportunity to expand their domain, provide better solutions for projects and improve their margins by delivering higher value to clients. Or, they can hide behind the traditional separation of roles and try to ward off other stakeholders using BIM and encroaching on design and the design process. They can point to liability issues, problems with insurance, the challenge of charging more and added risk as reasons not to change. By doing so, however, architects will narrow their boundaries and influence.

The architects who have fully embraced BIM and make it part of their standard practice have somehow found answers to liability, insurance and risk questions. They do not see BIM as an added cost that they must find a way to convince owners to pay more. They earn more because these architects shorten the schedule, reduce the cost and nearly eliminate change orders.

The traditional firms who feel a sense of encroachment and loss of influence due to BIM are at a disadvantage to contractors when adopting BIM. I’ve heard from many that it is hard to make the investment in BIM when clients are resistant to pay a premium for the added cost. This logic makes perfect sense when the mindset focuses on the added time and cost, not the added value.

Contractors, on the other hand, are no more progressive or smarter when it comes to BIM. But the traditional contractor can find immediate financial value using BIM simply by removing trade collisions, more accurate quantity take-offs, more detailed means and methods and tighter coordination.

This is why McGraw Hill sees contractors adopting BIM at a faster rate, using it at a deeper level.

I’m rooting for the architect because they offer something that no one else can. They see the whole and are able to translate concepts and vision into something tangible and meaningful. However, here is the choice I see:

1. Adopt BIM to the greatest level possible because of enlightenment self-interest.
2. Adopt BIM to the greatest level possible because if not, you’ll become marginalized as providers of concept and style.

The slide show below is embedded from a website called Slideshare. Marc Goldman created the presentation. He provided an excellent overview defining BIM and illustrating many of its applications and value. I’m providing this because for every 2 architects I hear fully embracing BIM technology I still hear 8 that are debating the many challenges I referenced above.

Tags: AGC, construction, contractor, Revit