ACME Documented Discovery

Company: ACME CORP Workflow Contact:  David ACME Date: Feb 01, 2019 Documented Discovery

Documented Discovery The Documented Discovery is 3 step process broken down into 3 areas; 1) Discover and Document, 2) Score and Summarize, & 3) Recommend and Review.  Discover and Score and Review and  Document Summarize  Recommend Select a workflow to Score the workflow based Review scoring and diagnose: on industry standards: provide helpful recommendations on Typical (i.e. day-to-day) Design efficiency increasing efficiency    Incorporates multiple Collaboration and pro ducts Co o rdinatio n Based on new or old Simulation and Analysis releases Industry Standards Communication and Document the workflow in Delivery flowchart form

Discover and Document Business and workflow-related information and notes Discovery Questionnaire Question Responses / Notes What industry or industries does Manufacturing & warehouses your business serve? Where do you find the most We design well and produce a good final product s ucces s ? What is the largest obstacle facing Revit file corruption and file maintenance your business today? What is your group’s role in your We set up and manage BIM projects for design teams bus ines s ? What do current approaches A high-quality final product provide to your customers? What does this workflow NOT Efficiency. There are too many ways of doing things and too much redundancy provide that you wish it did? in our processes

Discover and Document Diagram of the current workflow state Barge Design is a multi-discipline engineering and architecture firm performing civil, survey, architectural, structural, MEP, and construction administration services, among others. It operates 15 offices which break down into multiple groups including Facilities, Environmental, Land Resources, Transportation, and Water Resources. This discovery focuses on the Facilities group. Designers, engineers, and architects within the Facilities group have been experiencing some performance and corruption issues with Revit files. Worksharing between offices is currently handled through the Panzura file replication system and there have been some questions about the viability of this system. There is hope that Autodesk's BIM 360 could be a more viable worksharing solution and possibly a general project data sharing solution. The approach to design within the Facilities group is very drawing-centric, meaning that more emphasis is placed on the accuracy and completeness of the drawing documents than the models used to generate the documents. For example, clashes in the model are not seen as important unless they affect what is shown on the drawing documents. Design review communication is primarily handled through phone and email, both internally at Barge Design as well as externally with consultants.  Design and QA/QC is done through a combination of digital mark-up and paper print mark-up. Ray McGahey and David Lindsey handle the BIM/CAD coordination responsibilities for the Facilities group. The majority of their time is expected to be billable leaving limited time for overhead tasks such as training or standards management. Standards within the Facilities group are outdated and seldom used, resulting in many different ways of doing things. Digital training resources have been provided but many feel that there isn't adequate time to focus on training. The Facilities group is looking to improve efficiency in design and QA/QC while eliminating the Revit file corruption and performance issues that they are currently experiencing. They desire a shift toward focusing on the integrity of the model - an approach where both the model and the drawings \"need to be right.\" They are also looking to to have more flexible access to project data including working from home, while traveling, and access via mobile devices. Current Workflow

Barge Design Facilities Group Workflow Summary 1. David or Ray sets up Revit models for the design teams. This includes: Creating the Revit files based on templates Setting up title blocks Creating links 2. Revit worksharing is initiated through Panzura 3. The files are then worked on by the different design teams: Architectural Structural Mechanical & Plumbing Electrical 4. When the design reaches the appropriate point, information is sent out to several recipients: Revit models sent to external consultants IFC models sent to contractors for clash detection Some contractors specify a file exchange platform such as Viewpoint 5. The external consultants develop their own Revit models which are sent to David/Ray via email. David/Ray then incorporates those Revit models into Barge's project linking structure.

6. David/Ray will create a Building Management Model to check for constructability and clashes between team designs. They generate clash reports which are communicate by email and/or during design review meetings. 7. When the design reaches the appropriate point, PDFs of the sheets are created and sent to the Project Admin. The Project Admin assembles the sheets into packages within the Deliverables folder. 8. QA/QC then takes place using the contents of the Deliverables folder. Mark-ups can be done digitally or on paper. Requested changes are communicated back to the design teams. This process is repeated until the project is complete. Digitally marked-up sheets are placed in a designated folder on the network. Email communication informs the teams that QA/QC is done and where to find it. Paper prints are physically marked up and returned to the design teams. 9. When QA/QC is complete, the finished files from the Deliverables folder are provided to the client. Some clients require that Revit sheets be converted to DWG and provided to them in that form.

Score and Summarize  Assessment of the existing workflow relative to best practices Current Workflow Score   Broken Poor Average Good Innovative           Design Efficiency              Design and data creation and accuracy NA        Collaboration and          Coordination    Workload sharing and load balancing Industry Standards Conformance to industry protocols Simulation and Analysis Data generation, metrics and inte rpo latio n Communication and Delivery Proficiency in production of deliverables Bro ken:  Loss of work and or data Po o r:  Manual intervention, rework and or recreation of design or data  Average:  Features and capabilities yield desired result with minimized risks to performance and data  Go o d: Efficient by industry standards, leverages BIM or model-based approach to data sharing Inno vative:   Best in class, incorporating cloud-based solutions and collaborative load balancing  Design Efficiency has been rated as Average. The Facilities group makes effective use of Revit as a design tool. This rating would be higher without the file corruption and performance issues impeding design efficiency. Collaboration and Coordination has been rated as Broken. Revit file linking and worksharing through Panzura show a commitment to, and practice of team collaboration. H owever, the file corruption and performance issues are affecting collaboration negatively. Ray and David are having to deal with multiple file corruptions per week resulting in loss of work and data.  Another collaboration/coordination concern is that issues found during model reviews are often not addressed if the final drawings are not affected. This practice brings the integrity of the model in question during a time when the model is directly looked at more and more for design and construction information. In fact, during the discovery discussion it was mentioned that model-based RFIs are being seen in increasing frequency. Industry Standards has been rated as Average. The use of Revit and file linking is on par with industry practices for this type of work. This rating could be upgraded to Good if more emphasis was placed on the BIM model

versus the drawing documents. Simulation and Analysis has been rated as NA since it was not a topic of focus during the discovery discussion. Communication and Delivery has been rated as Poor. The communication between the Facilities group and external consultants happens primarily through email and no direct integration exists between external design teams and Barge design teams. The QA/QC process is 50% paper-based and utilizes a separate 3rd-party tool when done digitally. Project documents are shared with clients and other stakeholders through another 3rd- party file sharing platform or through email. These are all outdated practices which do not leverage the capabilities of centralizing project data and having review and submission activities hosted in the same space.

Score and Summarize  Include observations of benefits and risks or issues of existing workflow Current Workflow Summary Benefits Risks / Issues Comfortable, familiar, and produces quality results File corruption resulting in time and data loss   Manual or outdated practices of design collaboration   Manual or outdated practices of review and QA/QC Manual or outdated practices of providing deliverables to clients and other stakeholders Lack of audit trail - not easy to prove, who did what, when.

Review and Recommend Diagram of proposed workflow changes Proposed Workflow The main theme for this proposed workflow is to move the entire project into the BIM 360 platform. From here, Revit worksharing is accomplished via the cloud, circumventing the need for Panzura.  The new BIM 360-based workflow would be as follows:

1. David/Ray sets up Revit models for the design teams. This includes: Creating the Revit files based on templates Setting up title blocks Creating links 2. Revit worksharing is initiated via BIM 360 Design 3. The files are then worked on by the different design teams: Architectural Structural M e c hanic al & P lumbing Electrical 4. Rather than PDFs, native Revit sheets are utilized. These automatically become reviewable sheets in the BIM 360 platform eliminating the need for PDFs. They can however be combined with PDF documentation if needed. 5. External consultants are given access to the BIM 360 project and publish their models using BIM 360 Design Collaboration 6. Clash Detection will be done within the BIM 360 environment using the BIM 360 Glue functionality. Clashes and other design issues can be communicated to the design teams via BIM 360 Issues. Contractors can use the same clash detection tools for their analyses, eliminating the need to convert files to IFC to be sent to them. 7. When the design reaches the appropriate point, the project Admin can assemble Sets within the BIM 360 environment. These sets, along with the design model can be distributed to those responsible for QA/QC. 8. QA/QC takes place within the BIM 360 platform utilizing the Review, Mark-up, and Issue functionalities. As issues and mark-ups are addressed, back-checking can also take place with the BIM 360 platform since it tracks the status and the specifics of how changes are addressed. 9. Upon completion of the QA/QC process, the client is given access to the appropriate folder in BIM 360 where they can view the models, sheets, and other items that are appropriate to give them access to. For clients that require DWGs or PDFs, these can still be created but housed and shared within the BIM 360 environment.

Review and Recommend Assessment of proposed workflow relative to implemented best practices.  Proposed Workflow Score   Broken Poor Average Good Innovative           Design Efficiency              Design and data creation and accuracy NA        Collaboration and          Coordination    Workload sharing and load balancing Industry Standards Conformance to industry protocols Simulation and Analysis Data generation, metrics and inte rpo latio n Communication and Delivery Proficiency in production of deliverables Bro ken:  Loss of work and or data Po o r:  Manual intervention, rework and or recreation of design or data Average:  Features and capabilities yield desired result with minimized risks to performance and data Go o d: Efficient by industry standards, leverages BIM or model-based approach to data sharing Inno vative:   Best in class, incorporating cloud-based solutions and collaborative load balancing Design Efficiency is now rated as Good.  The use of BIM 360 Revit worksharing should greatly reduce or eliminate issues with corruption and slow performance. Collaboration and Coordination is now rated as Good. The lost time and data should be greatly reduced with the use of BIM 360 as the worksharing platform.  BIM 360 will also enable greater model-based collaboration shifting emphasis toward model integrity and the idea that both the model and the drawings need to be correct and complete.  Features of BIM 360 such as Issues, Mark-ups, RFIs, Sets, and Review will greatly enhance and encourage collaborative practices. Industry Standards is now rated as Good. With the use of Revit combined with the use of a cloud-based platform for design, review, and collaboration will put the Facilities group at the leading edge of industry standard practice, bordering on innovative. Simulation and Analysis remains as NA since it was not a topic of focus during the discovery discussion.

Communication and Delivery is now rated as Good. The centralization of communication within the BIM 360 platform will greatly improve the quality of communication and the ability to track down communication records.  Paper-based review will be phased out and digital mark-up and review will be fully embraced. Collaboration with external consultants will be done directly through the BIM 360 platform, eliminating the current manual email-based data transfer.

Review and Recommend Feedback and propose next steps Review Recommendations Observations Recommendations Revit users are experiencing file corruption and We have seen this with other customers using Panzura performance degradation. and recommend using BIM 360 Design for Revit worsksharing. This should greatly reduce file errors, improve efficiency,  and improve design model integrity. Even in cases where problems occur, the versioning functionality in BIM 360 will make it quick and efficient to roll back to an earlier version. The use of BIM 360 will also move design information into a platform where other benefits of BIM 360, greatly needed by the Facilities Group, can be utilized. The collaboration process between the Facilities group Have external consultants utilize BIM 360 Design and external consultants is manual and email-based. worksharing to collaborate with the Facilities Team. This will also improve efficiency, reduce errors, and improve overall design model integrity due to the streamlining of the collaborative process. The QA/QC process is manual and 50% paper-based. Utilize the Mark-up and Issue functionality of BIM 360 to centralize and digitize QA/QC. This will greatly improve the efficiency of the QA/QC process and greatly improve assurance that the latest design files and drawing documents are being used. Questions from contractors are communicated via Utilize the RFI functionality of BIM 360 Build to centralize email. information transfer and easily associate it with design models and project documentation. This will greatly improve the clarity and efficiency with which contractor questions are conveyed and answered. Greater importance is placed on the integrity of the Fully utilize Revit and BIM 360 to focus on model drawing documents than the integrity of the model. integrity which will naturally propagate to drawing documents. Encourage the use of design models for QA/QC, including clash detection. Commit to addressing clashes in the model.  Next Steps Owner Resources

Procure and implement BIM 360 Customer + Partner https ://bim36 0.auto des k.co m/ Identify and execute a pilot project for Customer + Autodesk + Partner   Revit worksharing     Identify and execute a pilot project for Cus to mer   digital QA/QC Identify and execute a pilot project for Cus to mer RFI workflows with contractors Standardize on BIM 360 for all of Cus to mer these functions within future projects Possibly engage with a partner to Customer + Partner help with implementation, training, support, etc.