BIM collaboration across six disciplines

Abstract

To prepare future building professionals for interdisciplinary collaboration, the model of a vertical “Collaborative BIM Studio” was developed and performed in the academic year of 2008/09. Students of six different disciplines – architecture, landscape architecture, construction, structural, mechanical, and lighting/electrical engineering – were given the task to revise the prototype design of an elementary school while using building information modelling (BIM) technology for data collection, analysis, design development, data coordination, and project presentations throughout the semester. They were instructed by faculty of architecture, landscape architecture, and architectural engineering. The studio was evaluated using internal and external observation methods and surveys. The gathering of all design information in coordinated digital models provided the students with tangible experience in team organization and BIM workflow. All disciplines were closely engaged in each other’s work, and feedback and synchronous communication were facilitated. Workflow observations and design actions indicated that the planning of model content and workflow at the beginning of a project are critical to successful design collaboration. The integrated environment and the use of BIM led to an intensive collaborative educational experience for both undergraduate and graduate students of the participating disciplines and to mutual understanding of technical, aesthetic and social aspects of a collaborative design process.

Full text

icccbe
2010
©NottinghamUniversityPress
ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceon
ComputinginCivilandBuildin gEngineering
WTizani(Editor)
Abstract
To prepare future building professionals for interdisciplinary collaboration, the model of a vertical
“Collaborative BIM Studio” was developed and performed in the academic year of 2008/09. Students
of six different disciplines – architecture, landscape architecture, construction, structural, mechanical,
and lighting/electrical engineering – were given the task to revise the prototype design of an
elementary school while using building information modelling (BIM) technology for data collection,
analysis, design development, data coordination, and project presentations throughout the semester.
They were instructed by faculty of architecture, landscape architecture, and architectural engineering.
The studio was evaluated using internal and external observation methods and surveys. The gathering
of all design information in coordinated digital models provided the students with tangible experience
in team organization and BIM workflow. All disciplines were closely engaged in each other’s work,
and feedback and synchronous communication were facilitated. Workflow observations and design
actions indicated that the planning of model content and workflow at the beginning of a project are
critical to successful design collaboration. The integrated environment and the use of BIM led to an
intensive collaborative educational experience for both undergraduate and graduate students of the
participating disciplines and to mutual understanding of technical, aesthetic and social aspects of a
collaborative design process.
Keywords: collaboration, academic setting, integrated design, BIM, interdisciplinary studio
1 The need for collaborative studios
The architectural design and construction process is highly interdisciplinary by nature. In order to
prepare students for interdisciplinary collaboration, many accrediting boards of different disciplines
require collaboration as a learning content while they are committed not to dictate which disciplines
should collaborate and in which setting (studio, seminar or lecture) collaboration should be achieved
(ABET 2009, NAAB 2009).
Attempts at studio collaboration between departments of architecture, landscape architecture,
architectural engineering, civil engineering, and other design disciplines have been ongoing for
decades (Fruchter 2003). They have still not become a common setting since they are challenged with
coordinating different learning objectives, curricula schedules and teaching responsibilities, as well as
different research and design cultures that exist among the disciplines. However, facing the current
increase of design complexity, as apparent in integrated practice and sustainability, it seems even
BIM collaboration across six disciplines
Ute Poerschke, Robert J. Holland, John I. Messner & Madis Pihlak
The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA

more urgent to shift toward intensified academic collaboration of the disciplines involved in the
design and construction process.
Also, the use of building information modelling (BIM) is becoming widespread in the architecture,
engineering, and construction (AEC) professions, and it is increasingly expected from graduates to
know this technology. Academia should not only react to this expectation but should take the lead in
researching the effects of BIM concerning, for example, the changes of collaboration structures,
business models, and the design process.
Concluding from these observations, the motive for the studio course was twofold: first, to
investigate a new interdisciplinary teaching model with BIM as an underlying design and organization
tool that might become a regular alternative interdisciplinary design studio better preparing future
building professionals for collaboration across the disciplines; and second, to explore the strengths
and weaknesses of current BIM technologies for addressing changing design demands of different
disciplines. Since the potential of BIM is neither fully exploited nor even fully explored, the course is
inherently a learning environment for both students and faculty.
2 The organization of the collaborative BIM studio
The course was organized as a one semester vertical studio including undergraduate students of 3rd-
to 5th-year standing and graduate students. Eighteen students from the three different departments of
architecture, landscape architecture, and architectural engineering were involved. The studio was
initiated by four professors from the three departments, but was mainly instructed and administered by
one professor holding a dual position in architecture and architectural engineering. As a prerequisite
for the course, basic skills in program analysis, design, modelling, and visualization of the built
environment were expected. Three design groups were formed, each with six students from the
disciplines of architecture, landscape architecture, construction, structural, mechanical, and
lighting/electrical engineering. The groups were given the task to design an elementary school in
Pennsylvania. The project brief emphasized sustainability as a major goal for the school project.
The students had to use BIM technology for data collection, analysis, design development, data
coordination, and project presentations throughout the semester. In addition to a detailed program and
site information, the students were given a preliminary prototype design of an elementary school in
the form of a basic building information model with only room layout and building volumes in order
to speed up the initial design process and to allow time for tasks such as lighting design, construction
scheduling, cost estimating, clash detection, etc. The first task of the teams was to critically review the
initial prototype model, perform a cost analysis, and develop preliminary construction schedules.
Through this, students immediately worked together as a team, analyzed the model and discussed the
school design. The teams were then asked to modify the prototype design as well as locate the
building on the site to maximize the potential for sustainable design. They were asked to optimize and
redefine the design for usability, aesthetic expression, sustainability (including life-cycle),
constructability, and cost.
Beside the project overview, three introductory lectures were given on “Integrated Design and
BIM,” “Sustainability and Green BIM,” and “Effective Teamwork.” A BIM Wiki website was
developed in previous semesters, which was expanded for the studio course (BIM Wiki 2009). The
purpose was to provide additional workflow and BIM software tutorials to the students participating
in the Collaborative BIM Studio. The studio was held in the Immersive Construction (ICon) Lab,
which provided an immersive and stereoscopic viewing environment. Each student was also provided
a tablet PC for use during the studio class.
Each team had to demonstrate their progress in four distinct presentations, the first emphasizing
analysis and evaluation of the given prototype school; the second and the third focusing on the design
process and BIM workflows; and the fourth presenting the finalized project including architectural,

landscape and engineering design, energy analysis, cost estimating, scheduling (including 4D
modelling), constructability, and clash detection.
3 Observations
In the following, the outcomes of various observation and survey methods used to assess the
collaboration process and the use of BIM technology will be discussed. It can generally be stated that
the Collaborative BIM Studio setting described in this paper led to an intensive collaborative
educational experience for both undergraduate and graduate students in the mentioned disciplines.
The collaborative environment facilitated with BIM led to an excellent understanding of the
professional processes to synthesize technical, aesthetic and social aspects to a design. The gathering
of all design information in coordinated data models provided the students with tangible experience in
team organization and workflow.
3.1 Team organization and collaboration dynamics
A graduate class of psychology students conducted two observational studies of the creative design
process during the middle and the end of the BIM studio. They identified three important factors in
the collaboration process. First, leadership within a group was important for effective meetings, with
naturally emerging leadership being more effective than assigned leadership. Second, technology was
observed to facilitate as well as hinder teamwork. Floor plans projected on the large screens in the
ICon Lab, for example, allowed for intensive group discussion about program layout [Fig.1a], while
laptops often invited independent work [Fig.1b]. Third, active contribution to a positive group climate
was emphasized to be a key factor for productivity and creativity.
Figure 1. Working session and group discussion using the large screen setting (a) and tablet PCs (b)
In addition to the external observation, a teammate survey, administered at the middle and end of
the semester, was developed to obtain feedback on the performance of fellow team members. Each
student was asked to provide a self-evaluation on the same criteria to identify areas of significant
divergence between self-awareness and teammate opinions as these discrepancies can be as important
as any single criteria positive or negative evaluation. Second, a detailed student survey on the course
was conducted after completion of the course. Students generally appreciated the interdisciplinary
work, the opportunity to gain insight in the work processes of other disciplines, and the designing of a
building in a more holistic way. Being asked if the Collaborative BIM Studio “was a more effective
design studio learning experience than previous design studios” architectural engineering students
answered with 4.4 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) while architecture
students answered with 2.7 and landscape architecture students with 3.0. The students remarked that
the design process took longer when so many people provide input and that the lead-lag of

information from one discipline and analysis by another discipline proved to be a significant
workflow management challenge. While the BIM platform allowed them to engage in each other’s
work, the majority of students found interoperability of software challenging as well as having to
learn some of the software on the fly.
3.2 BIM technology and workflow
The faculty observed that the inclusiveness of such a diverse participant group made the concept and
potential of BIM apparent. Students from different disciplines could draw upon one central model,
redefine it for their own needs, perform complex analyses in discipline-specific software using
separate models [Fig.2a-e], and then re-inform the central model (with some hurdles of information
backflow into the main model). In contrast, a studio that embraces just one discipline seems limited in
exploring the collaboration potentials of BIM.
Figure 2. Examples of models used in the Collaborative BIM Studio: structural analysis (a), construction
sequencing (b), energy model (c), spatial visualization (d), and mechanical systems (e)
The primary building information model contained a high level of data early on in the design
process. As a downside, the amount of generated data turned out to be difficult to handle, for example
when exporting the model to other analysis tools, which needed only particular, abstracted
information. However, since reducing data of advanced models for particular analysis is a common
problem also in professional practice this became a very useful experience for the students. Since
integrating all information in one model is neither feasible (because the amount of data is too big) nor
appropriate (because not all information is relevant for all team members), it became obvious that
model content and workflow planning are critical to design collaboration in an integrated environment.
Interoperability between different software packages is still a challenge and this made technical
instruction and support necessary throughout the semester. The assistance of an architectural
engineering graduate student with a comprehensive knowledge of many of the software packages used
and a general overview of BIM was immensely helpful.
The large screens of the ICon Lab were heavily used for presentations followed by intensive
discussions [Fig.3a,b]. The laptops in some cases seemed to be a barrier to collaboration, even with
the swivel screens. Only one team used repeatedly the large screens in connection with the laptops for
design review and collaborative discussion.

Figure 3. Final group presentation, here landscape design (a) and clash detection (b)
In the surveys, students repeatedly expressed that it would be helpful to first gain more experience
with the software before using it in a design project. In contrast, the course was developed by the
faculty as a project-based learning experience that focused on the integration of the disciplines. Pre-
knowledge of BIM programs and integrated project delivery were made a prerequisite for the course,
and students were additionally provided with the BIM Wiki website and references (Eastman 2008,
Krygiel 2008). However, the actual digital skills of the students varied widely and it became obvious
that not all of the analysis applications can be learnt beforehand. As a conclusion, a smaller project
might have been more adequate to reduce the challenge of learning software during the design process.
As a major faculty observation, there was a seduction to consider the managing of the model and
simulation as more important than the design task. At times students seemed to opt for the easy
compromise rather than push for alternative design solutions. It might seem obvious that BIM does
not replace creativity, however often enough, the students were so deeply occupied with
interoperability questions and getting the model and simulation right that they almost forgot the more
important next steps to critically reflect and evaluate the model, the simulation outcomes and the
design alternatives.
3.3 Administration
While implementing this education model two main administrative challenges emerged. Architectural
engineering students normally take three-credit studios while architecture and landscape architecture
students take six-credit studios. This led to the situation that architecture and landscape architecture
students had to take the Collaborative BIM Studio as a studio parallel to their ‘real’ studio thus
diminishing the weight of the collaborative studio.
The second challenge was finding a common meeting time for students and faculty from the six
different disciplines. The existing curricula of the different departments are highly structured and

allow for only limited flexibility. The conclusion was that such a course cannot be only a bottom-up
effort by a few faculty members but must be matched by administrative support. If departments are
interested in expanding interdisciplinary courses, it might be useful to establish common times for
collaboration in the departmental schedules.
From an administrative perspective, it seems unlikely that such a high faculty-to-student ratio can
be maintained. However, although the course can be conducted mainly by one instructor it is critical
to have input from faculty of all disciplines. Students will work better together if they see that faculty
work together as well.
4 Outlook
The studio will be repeated in the spring semester of 2010 with the following modifications:
• Since students and faculty concluded that the project was too large, a program roughly half the size
will be used.
• As the project will be smaller in scale, each team will have the opportunity to collectively develop a
design based on a common program and site rather than use the prototype design approach.
• Updating and editing of the BIM Wiki website will become a course requirement thus helping build
up knowledge and support for future Collaborative BIM Studios in and outside the University.
• Teams will be required to develop a BIM execution plan early in the semester to assist in defining
their design and analysis workflow, software requirements, and information exchanges.
• Given the limited time of one semester and the students’ BIM and team approach learning curve, it
remains a challenge to balance creative design, questions of collaboration, and the exploration of the
capabilities of BIM software. Through discussion sessions, students’ awareness must be established
that digital models are representations of only particular aspects of a building design. Models are
not the whole and complex reality, but means of collaborative design and construction to produce
meaningful and liveable spaces. BIM and simulation can facilitate the design processes of analysis
and synthesis, and interdisciplinary collaboration can reinforce the iterative process of testing ideas.
Acknowledgements
This course is funded by the Raymond A. Bowers Program for Excellence in Design and Construction
of the Built Environment, which is an endowment established at The Pennsylvania State University to
promote interdisciplinary study and research. We also thank Dr. Sam T. Hunter, Professor of
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, for providing the teamwork analysis for the project, and
graduate student Ralph G. Kreider for assisting the course.
References
ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ABET), Accreditation criteria available online:
www.abet.org/Linked Documents-UPDATE/Criteria and PP/E001 10-11 EAC Criteria 11-03-09.pdf, Last accessed:
December 2009.
EASTMAN, C., TEICHOLZ, P., SACKS, R., LISTON, K., 2008. BIM Handbook, A Guide to Building Information
Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
FRUCHTER, R., 2003. Innovation in Engaging Learning and Global Teamwork Experiences. In: Proceedings Of The 4th
Joint International Symposium On Information Technology In Civil Engineering, 2003, Nashville, TN.
KRYGIEL, E., NIES, B. and MCDOWELL, S., 2008. Green BIM: Successful Sustainable Design with Building Information
Modeling. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
BIM Wiki, http://bim.wikispaces.com/ARCH+497A+-+BIM+Studio, Last accessed: December 2009.
NATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ACCREDITING BOARD (NAAB), Accreditation criteria available online:
www.naab.org/accreditation/2009_Conditions.aspx, Last accessed: December 2009.