History was made. The first ever Design Intent Gap Summit was held. Nearly 50 attended the invitation only event to discuss the issue and suggest how to preserve design intent throughout the design and construction process.
Conspectus hosted the event. Architects, engineers, specifiers, contractors, estimators, manufacturers, owners, national government agencies, software suppliers, and academics all met at SOM New York City office to offer their own perspectives.
Culture of the project teams was a key concern. The project team must be collaborative and transparent in making and documenting decisions. The team consists of more than the designers. As many as possible must be invited to participate to share their knowledge and expertise. The collaborative development will reduce requests for information (RFI), value engineering, and substitution proposals. Issues and concerns will be resolved during design when adjustments are easy to make with little or no cost impact to the project.
System and performance descriptions (SPD) were touted as a way to document and maintain design intent. Start the SPD early. Identify each building system. Document performance and design requirements. Show components when the design solution is known. Capture the “why.” Why decisions were made is the most important aspect of design intent and critical criteria for evaluating future project decisions.
Add what you know, when you know it. Use the SPD to make design decisions. Use those decisions to create the “perfect” project building information model (BIM) according to @wpayne from smbw architects. That way the model accurately represents the project and need not be hidden to create the final 2D drawing sheets to construct the project.
I guess the answer(s) are the same as they have been for some time when other innovations - or just straight-up common-sense improvements - have been offered…
… we are part of and industry and culture that is allergic to change. It is more risk-adverse than nearly any other industry because people are afraid of what change may harbor.
Adopting a change affects…
... Money
… Responsibility
… Liability
… Known processes
… Knowledge transfer/gatekeeping (aka, power)
I saw this (and still continue to) when I worked at Vectorworks in trying to promote BIM over 2D CAD… or implementing LEAN. I see it when trying to promote openBIM (see https://www.buildingsmart.org/). I see it when people talk about adopting other international and national standards that are readily available (and often have been for years/decades).
When I served as Vice-Chair of the National BIM Standard - United States V3 project at NIBS, our chair, Chris Moor, stated it well… (paraphrasing) our industry won’t make necessary changes unless there is a crisis large enough to severely disrupt the bosses’ (project delivery) personal bottom lines… and even then, it may not make the correct ones.
First, a disclaimer. I’ve been retired for 15 years, and so have no recent experience to draw on. The world has moved on, and it’s now a different profession than it was in 2011 when I hung it up.
The idea behind Systems and Performance Descriptions makes sense—here is a problem, and SPDs are a potential way to address that problem (notice I didn’t say it’s The Solution). In response to the question, “why isn’t this being done?”, we all know there’s a lot of inertia in the construction industry, and “we’ve always done it this way” is firmly entrenched.
So I wish you success in promoting the concept. I also would note that systems are not panaceas. We now can recognize the shortcomings of PPDs only because PPD were first created, developed, and used. What will we be saying about SPDs in 10 or 20 years?
Experienced professionals (on all sides of the table) openly and honestly communicating with each other is the necessary prerequisite to project success, regardless of whether PPDs, SPDs, some other system, or no system is used.
Excellent point about the discussion @Davemetzger. This is exactly what we promote. Get the entire team together. Have the conversation. Make decisions together and document the result.
Early in a project, talking about systems is far more productive because the final design solution need not be known. The system will still exist as part of the project. Products can be selected later.
I appreciate the approach of OmniClass, where there are multiple tables of classification based on which approach you want to take - systems, materials, elements, roles, etc. - and apply to a project, even simultaneously by different stakeholders. Of course, this adds a lot of complexity, but as pointed out by @David_Stutzman , discussions are needed early in the project among all the stakeholders to decide the what, how, and why.
Check this new post by The Construction Standard (CIN). Apparently the UNIFORMAT(r) task team is working on expanding the format to cover multiple entities using tables such as are found in OMINCLASS(r). I wonder if this will cause confusion since OMNICLASS includes a different table for facilities by type (entities) as the task team is proposing.
I learned that none of this round of revision is being discussed with ASTM. Excluding industry input in a revision that will be a substantial structural change to the format is not a good idea. This will simply split the two separate UNIFORMAT documents farther apart, requiring the industry to choose one.
Will there be a public comment period? When will a draft be ready for review, and how long will the comment period be open? Who will reconcile comments and approve publication?
My understanding is that the ASTM and CSI development efforts are completely independent of each other, by design. ASTM seems to be even more opaque, even though they are publishing “open” national standards. It’s quite frustrating.
The 2000 edition of the CSI document and ASTM E1557 were completely aligned. I chaired the committee that made that happen. I served as CSI liaison to ASTM E06.81 the subcommittee responsible for E1557. I was the liaison for years, both before and after the 2000 edition.
The 2010 edition of the CSI document departed from ASTM. ASTM did not participate in any of the 2010 revision meetings I attended. I was no longer the liaison and do not know if anyone was. The CSI effort was chaired by Bob Johnson. I remember RS Means participating. I do not recall the other industry groups that were involved. There were some.
I believe it was Keith Robinson that announced in the online demonstration of the CSI Dynamic Standards(sm) that CSI was working with ASTM on the UNIFORMAT updates. I contacted ASTM afterward. ASTM was unaware of any collaboration.
CSI prides itself on bringing the industry together. This current revision seems to be proceeding in secret. I wonder why CIN is announcing content updates rather than CSI? CIN is responsible for licensing and software only. CSI claims to control the content by their FAQ regarding the CSI Dynamic Standards(sm).
So sometime between 2000 and 2010, something happened…
The ASTM E2103 - Standard Classification for Bridge Elements—UNIFORMAT II appears to have been created without state DOT involvement. No state currently part of the Transportation Pooled Funds [TPF-5(372) and 5(523)] since 2018 has acknowledged any participation with the subcommittee E06.81 on this. FHWA might have been involved, but also no acknowledgement from them, either. That is worrisome.
How can you develop a standard without broader, direct industry stakeholder involvement? ASTM appears to be a “pay to play”, but if the players are state public entities, I’m not sure how the “pay” part of that works for them, if at all. They are usually happy to participate and work “in kind” but have very strict rules on paying for such projects (hence the TPFs and FHWA ADCMS grants).
Participation in ASTM is by membership and joining individual committees and subcommittees. How exactly the bridge UNIFORMAT II and highway UNIFORMAT II ASTM E3008 were developed, I do not know. I know the proponent on E06.81, an engineer heavily involved in those type of facilities. I argued against separate UNIFORMAT II documents for each mainly because the element titles were independent, but the numbering scheme was proposed to be the same between all the standards.
I agree that the industry should be engaged in creating industry standards, even if it takes longer. Getting consensus is a better approach for adoption. This is my concern now with CSI and UNIFFORMAT(r). It seems to have no broad industry input, only the input from the committee members.
I will follow up with separate topics in this category with questions that came from discussions at the Design Intent Gap Summit. I hope to learn more about the general perception within the industry. Please watch for the new topics and add your thoughts about the questions.
Conspectus is hosting an AIA webinar worth 1 LU/HSW focusing on how to document Design Intent. The webinar is offered multiple times through the end of the year. If interested, you can sign up here.
