Let’s get back to the basics of BIM

On 14 June 2017, a high-rise fire broke out in the 24-storey Grenfell Tower. 72 people died in that fire, most of whom were people of colour. Shamefully, it was the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom for over 29 years.

Subsequently, the Grenfell inquiry uncovered a vast catalogue of avoidable errors, many of which related to poor management of the building’s design and construction data that was critical to ensuring fire safety.

Additionally, the independent review, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, identified the need for a ‘golden thread of information’, including the digital record that should be maintained across the entire lifecycle of all higher risk residential buildings. The Hackitt report also highlighted the importance of deploying BIM to organise and maintain the digital record:

“A BIM system will enable the duty-holder to ensure accuracy and quality of design and construction, which are crucial for buildingin safety up front.”

This recommendation means that it is inevitable that BIM managers and BIM coordinators will have a critical role in ensuring that the ‘golden thread of information’ is properly implemented in design and construction and is rigorously maintained throughout the operational phase.

The adage that ‘you have to learn to walk before you can run’ is entirely applicable to BIM. It makes no sense for BIM managers and coordinators to focus on the complexities of generating computational geometry and AR/VR output, if they still aren’t capable of properly coordinating and controlling project information.

The Grenfell inquiry revealed critical problems in this regard. For example, it is worrying that, even though there is clear evidence that some of the design team had access to in-house BIM resources, the expert witness cited a range of significant issues that impaired the quality of information that related to fire safety.

If we are to prevent another Grenfell, then, we, as BIM professionals, need to ensure that these issues, as outlined below, are never repeated.

1. Design Responsibility Matrix

In his supplemental report, the expert witness and chartered architect, Paul Hyett, wrote:

“It seems to me that another fundamental problem with this project was that a matrix of responsibilities under the Design and Build contractor were never properly established or monitored. I have not seen evidence of any such matrix at any stage of the project. Whilst such a matrix is important at the earlier stages, it is critically important under any Design and Build appointment.”

At the very least, a design responsibility matrix, once circulated among project stakeholders and agreed, mitigates the risk of ambiguity over the division of pre- and post-appointment design responsibilities. Accordingly, ISO-19650-1 identifies, as a general requirement, that “a responsibility matrix should be generated as part of the information delivery planning process in one or more levels of detail.”

2. Coordination of Project Information

In his report entitled ‘Failures in Quality Control’, Paul Hyett identified major omissions (e.g., the service riser) and discrepancies (e.g., fire ratings) in successive Fire Strategy drawings. It was also reported that, in some cases, the drawing number and title within the title block did not correspond to the file name (‘container ID’ is the technical term). Furthermore, the file naming (e.g., 1279_SEA_(08) 101 Fire Strategy.pdf) did not comply with the then UK BIM standard, BS-1192.

Surely, this issue underscores the fact that to maintain ‘the golden thread of information’, BIM coordinators will need to establish a robust regime for carefully comparing and checking successive revisions to drawings, models and schedules before they are shared. It also highlights the importance of using of laser scan overlays (a.k.a. scan to BIM) to verify existing conditions, instead of just relying on design assumptions.

3. Common Data Environment

In accordance with correct design procedures, Paul Hyett explained that: “Throughout the life of any project, all documentation issued to Clients, Consultants and Statutory Authorities should be recorded on a ‘Drawing Issue Register’. This register should typically contain information including document name, number, version, date of issue. In addition, distribution listings should be maintained, accurately recording the recipient’s name, date sent and the drawing revision. Confirmation as to whether the document was issued electronically, as a hard copy, or both electronically and hard copy should in each instance also be included on the register.”

This requirement is better facilitated by sharing information via a Common Data Environment (CDE) than via email because the CDE provides centralised ‘transparency of information and an audit trail all the way through the life cycle of a building from the planning stage to occupation and maintenance.’

It is notable that, absent this centralised audit trail, the Grenfell inquiry had to resort to the inefficiency of sifting through the email accounts of multiple project stakeholders to compile an audit trail comprising all the information that was exchanged in relation to fire safety.

4. Revision Control

In his report, Paul Hyett emphasised the importance of revision control. He wrote:

“Normal protocols with respect to revisions are for the revision to be described, albeit briefly, in the space adjoining the revision number above the title box, and for the drawing for that issue only to be annotated with a ‘balloon’ around the revision or revisions that clearly highlights the amendment.”

He also provided examples that suggested a lack of revision control, ranging from omitting the ‘balloon’ around each revision to omitting the sequence of previous revisions from the drawing’s revision box and to using over-generalised descriptions (e.g., ‘Scheme Updated’).

He wrote: “As a result, there was usually no indication and/or location to notify recipients of the drawings as to what specific changes had been made.”

The lesson to be learnt is that BIM coordinators are still required to ensure that all the key changes to drawings are identified and listed. Even the most powerful software for comparing models is not substitute for carefully identifying and annotating revisions.

5. Specification References

Despite the fateful decision to opt for aluminium composite panels, the cladding details continued to be specified as zinc composite.

Again, this highlights the importance of the ‘I’ (for information) in BIM. Critically, the value of BIM as a shared resource diminishes to the extent that its level of detail and information are not regularly updated to reflect ongoing design decisions.

In my experience, the design team often emphasise the importance of ensuring that models are issued with the required level of detail. However, to maintain the ‘golden thread of information’, BIM coordinators and managers have a duty to ensure that the level of information, including specification notes, adequately capture the status of the detailed design.

Conclusion

Therefore, while it is always encouraging to discover innovations in computational design, simulation and visualisation, the new building safety regime will require all BIM coordinators and managers to get ‘back to basics’ of project information management, as per ISO-19650, and, thereby, maintain the ‘golden thread of information’.

Those foundational aspects of information management (e.g., design responsibility matrix, common data environment, revision control) require meticulous attention to detail. They aren’t the glamorous innovations that inspire audiences at BIM conferences.

Nevertheless, they do save lives. And if cost considerations force us to choose between spending on the latest Digital Twin innovations and developing a repeatable ‘golden thread of information’ that saves lives, I’d hope and expect that every BIM coordinator and manager would choose the latter every time.