The UK experience: waiting for a kick up the ar$e

In the UK the benefits of BIM were being extolled far and wide for years before the government introduced its BIM mandate. Report after report, case study after case study showed that BIM could reduce A by x% and improve B by y%. Many in the industry took that view that “they should make it compulsory so that everyone has to do it.” Many agreed. Many didn’t. Not much changed. Those who knew the benefits and had reaped some of the commercial rewards continued to ‘do BIM’ (or bits of it at least). Those who didn’t, and hadn’t, didn’t.

As an example I did some work with a large mechanical and electrical services contractor in the UK around 15 years ago. They spent up to 3-4% of their contract value to build virtual 3D models from paper drawings. Just think about that for a moment: in an industry historically working on margins of between zero and 2% profit a contractor invested a significant sum on 3D. Not because it was mandated or because it was cool but for hard-nosed commercial reasons; on every job they saved far more than they invested in 3D modelling – by reducing clashes, reducing claims and improving procurement. Today that firm is heavily involved in BIM, off-site manufacturing, lean construction and a whole lot more besides: not because it’s been mandated but because it’s good business.

It was generally agreed in the industry that it would be a jolly good thing if BIM was mandated in some way. We carried on going to BIM presentations, we persuaded some projects to do some bits of BIM and life went on as usual. And that’s the position in which we find ourselves in Australia today.

But then something marvelous happened in the UK - the Global Financial Crisis hit.

Never waste a good crisis

The conditions created by the GFC presented a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically change the industry. The UK had shifted overnight from project delivery firms competing on value for money to one wher there was no money.

The government’s Chief Construction Advisor took the message to industry that the two main drivers were now cash and carbon: too little of the former and too much of the latter. And it wasn’t going to be a case of shaving a few per cent off here and there - the industry would be expected to propose radical solutions: BIM’s time had come but it wasn’t just about BIM.

The UK developed the Construction 2025 strategy describing how industry and government would work together to put Britain at the forefront of global construction over the coming years. It began with a clear vision of wher UK construction will be in 2025, recognising that the global construction market is forecast to grow by over 70% by 2025. The strategy envisions:

Lower costs 33% reduction in the initial cost of construction and the whole life cost of assets

Faster delivery 50% reduction in the overall time, from inception to completion, for new build and refurbished assets

Lower emissions 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment

Improvement in exports 50% reduction in the trade gap between total exports and total imports for construction products and materials

UK construction in 2025 will no longer be characterised by late delivery, cost overruns, commercial friction, late payment, accidents, unfavourable workplaces, a workforce unrepresentative of society or as an industry slow to embrace change.

So in that context BIM has been mandated for public sector projects and industry has collectively embraced the need to change. But it’s not all about BIM.

Bananarama got it wrong

An important part of the UK approach has been to demand project outcomes rather that dictate delivery processes. And the power of that approach – telling industry whatto do but not how to do it - can’t be underestimated. Which is why Bananarama got it back to front when they sang “it ain’t what you do it’s the way that you do it.” It is in fact all about what you do.

Put yourself in the client’s shoes and think about which option will have the greatest effect on reducing waste on a project:

1. Mandating that your supply chain ‘delivers in BIM’, or

2. Demanding that the $10m project is delivered for $8m?

In the UK pre-GFC option 2 wouldn’t get any takers from construction firms. Who in their right mind would try to build a something for $8m when it historically cost $10m? But in the post-GFC era there might be no other projects on offer. Did project delivery teams shake their head and walk away? No, of course not. Okay, some probably did but most started looking at how to deliver projects better, faster and cheaper – not because it was mandated but because it made good business sense. It was either that or go out of business. Innovate or die, as they say.

Clients have a key role to play in demanding better project outcomes while steering clear of telling their project delivery teams how to do it. A great benefit of option 2 is that it’s so simple to understand. The ‘tell-them-what-but-not-how’ approach leaves project delivery teams free to use integrated project delivery, BIM, lean construction, off-site fabrication and so on. If each one of these approaches contributed a reduction in project cost then why would you limit yourself to using just one of them? Would you really forego a cost saving while you waited for someone to mandate that you use off-site fabrication?

Construction waste has been estimated to be up to as high as 30% of the project cost. So, as a client ask yourself why you're paying $100m when it could - and should - be delivered for $70m. And make no mistake - mandating BIM on that project won't deliver the building for $70m. Think of the missed opportunities for innovation and better projects if you mandated only that your project teams ‘delivered in BIM.’

Mandate better, faster cheaper projects and the industry will deliver.

What’s the incentive in Australia?

A study by the Allen Consulting Group found that adopting BIM would increase GDP growth in Australia by 5 basis points by 2025, and that the cost benefit ratio of early adoption would be around 10. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the industry who doesn’t agree that BIM, underpinned by integrated, collaborative processes would help to improve project outcomes. Ten years ago in the UK there was also clear and extensive evidence of the benefits of adopting BIM and it took a crisis to get it mandated as part of a broader government-sponsored strategy.

Australia just needs that major kick (whether up the ar$e or elsewher) to get started. That kick needs to be big enough and ugly enough to drive government to develop its own version of the Construction 2025 strategy. Without that innovate-or-die urgency then the industry will limit itself to gradual improvements in productivity (or worse - no change) that will not be enough to enable Australian firms to compete globally. The UK has also just launched it's strategic plan for Level 3 BIM in the form of Digital Built Britain and the rest of the world needs to catch up.

In the meantime, while many firms are waiting for BIM to be mandated before they get properly stuck in, others are just getting on with it - improving their ability to compete internationally and to fight off competition from overseas firms in the domestic market.

For anyone who’s strongly advocating that the Australian government should mandate BIM now, let’s pretend we wake up tomorrow and it’s been mandated that all government projects must be delivered using BIM. Hurrah, I hear you cry. But what about the non-government jobs - will you deliver those using BIM? Or will you wait for each private-sector client to mandate its own flavour of BIM requirements before you ‘do BIM’ on their jobs? Or should government impose an industry-wide BIM mandate? In which case, shouldn’t government also mandate lean construction, integrated project delivery, off-site fabrication and so on – all of which offer significant benefits?

wher next for the industry?

I’m a strong advocate for BIM and I believe that government has a leading role to play in encouraging digital innovation and creating the conditions that will help Australian design and construction firms to compete globally. BIM is undoubtedly a part of that but it should be mandated only as part of a national strategy for the construction industry.

Clients need to be demanding better outcomes for their projects, leaving the ‘how’ to industry. Demand a 20% reduction in cost - and mean it - and your supply chains will innovate by using all of the technology, processes and best practices at their disposal. Some of that will involve BIM and an awful lot won’t. As economic conditions begin to tighten, clients will become less tolerant towards the waste inherent in construction and innovative firms will gain market share.

We all have a part to play in lobbying for a strategic government vision and 2025 plan for construction. But don’t sit around waiting for a mandate.

Just get on and do it.