During the Design Intent Gap Summit many comments pointed toward specifications, narratives, performance descriptions, OPR/Basis of Design documents, and other tools as possible ways of carrying intent forward. There was particular interest in making specifications an iterative design tool rather than a repository assembled late in the process. Attendees focused on understanding how System and Performance Desctipion type documentation might complement existing approaches.
If design intent were treated as information that must remain visible and usable throughout the project rather than as something captured in a particular document, what would we document, when would we document it, and how would each project participant use it?
In all BIM-authoring tools available today, including the widely used Autodesk Revit, users can assign one or more classifications (such as specification sections) to an object or assembly, at any time, regardless of the level of geometric detail. Cost values from a reliable source could be added as well.
More importantly, this information can be shared across a great number of platforms using IFC which enables such information to be captured and shared in a standardized way.
So, from my perspective, it’s just a matter of developing, adopting, and consistently implementing best practices when putting the models together and embedding this information ASAP and consistently. The information can always be changes/edited in the model as more detail and clarity evolves.
Associating spec sections with BIM objects requires the design solution to be known - meaning the individual products so the correct spec sections can be assigned. Early in design, the products may not be known, or only a class of product may be known. There are many spec sections that may apply for metal cladding on an exterior wall, for example.
Generally, when would spec section associations be made? Would this be in CD phase when product selections are presumably complete?
1 Like
I beleive design intent lives in decisions that include the rationale for the decision. This gives better insight into the project goals than a drawing or specification can.
I hope design intent is documented from the beginning - when the owner declares, “I need a project.”
I also hope that design intent informs project participants making future design decisions (based on the stated intent) so the team collectively works toward a solution that meets all the project requirements.
This is my aspiration. What is yours? How can we make the design and construction industry better?
1 Like
Indeed, document design intent from the beginning. Agreed; it is when the owner declares, “I need a project.” To expand, I strongly advocate that design intent starts at the outset, when the owner identifies the project needs and goals that the design intent must align with.
1 Like
Capturing the owner project requirements (OPR) is paramount for informed decision making. Design intent must always be tested against OPR to confirm objectives are met.
2 Likes
The National BIM Standard - United States (NBIMS-US) tries to address this through the BIM Execution Plan (BEP) and Project BIM Requirements (PBR) standards, as well as ISO 19650.
On the surface it looks like “information requirements” have nothing to do with design intent and owner requirements, but those precisely are within the scope of “information” necessary for project delivery.
2 Likes
The Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) define the project’s core goals, functional needs, performance criteria, design intent, and overall expectations. As the foundation for design, construction, and commissioning decisions, the OPR must be established before the Basis of Design (BOD).
Because the design process is iterative, maintaining a shared understanding of the owner’s vision and adhering to the established design intent throughout the project lifecycle is critical. True, design intent must be continually tested against the OPR to confirm that all project objectives are consistently met.
1 Like