When CAD (Computer Aided Design) was generally adopted in the early 1990’s, the hand drawn process was replaced with the CAD drawing but the nature of the artefacts / deliverables and the exchanges of information between disciplines remained fundamentally the same. The deliverables remained 2D representations of 3D forms and Specifications and Bill of Quantities. However, the building industry is under great pressure to provide value for money, sustainable design and construction. This has propelled the adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM). BIM is a foundational tool for a team based lean design approach. It can enable the intelligent interrogation of design; provide a quicker and cheaper design production; better co-ordination of documentation; more effective change control; less repetition of processes; a better quality constructed product; and improved communication both for the architectural practice and across the supply chain.
As BIM enables a new of working methodology, it entails the change in perceiving artefacts used and deliverables produced in the design and construction stages. In other words, defining what the informational issues are, who does what and who is responsible for what and the level of detail required at each stage in design and construction is critically important to adopt and implement BIM in the construction sector.
This paper presents the key findings through the action research methodology about the change in the nature of artefacts and deliverables resulting from the BIM adoption in the KTP (Knowledge Transfer Partnership) project undertaken by the University of Salford and John McCall Architects.
[1]
K. Devlin,et al.
AN EXAMINATION OF ARCHITECTURAL INTERPRETATION: ARCHITECTS VERSUS NON-ARCHITECTS
,
1990
.
[2]
Brad Hardin,et al.
BIM and Construction Management: Proven Tools, Methods, and Workflows
,
2009
.
[3]
Fabian Scheurer.
Getting complexity organised Using self-organisation in architectural construction
,
2007
.
[4]
Rachael Luck.
Using artefacts to mediate understanding in design conversations
,
2007
.
[5]
Muriel Cooper,et al.
Computers and Design
,
1989
.
[6]
Robert Gifford,et al.
ARCHITECTS PREDICT LAY EVALUATIONS OF LARGE CONTEMPORARY BUILDINGS: WHOSE CONCEPTUAL PROPERTIES?
,
2001
.
[7]
Bryan Lawson,et al.
What designers know
,
2018,
The Design Student’s Journey.
[8]
J. Whyte,et al.
Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects'
,
2009
.
[9]
Etienne Wenger,et al.
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
,
1991
.
[10]
Karen Holtzblatt,et al.
Contextual design
,
1997,
INTR.
[11]
P. Hubbard.
CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF ARCHITECTURE: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
,
1996
.
[12]
Daniel Forgues,et al.
Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning
,
2009,
J. Inf. Technol. Constr..
[13]
Gifford Robert,et al.
WHY ARCHITECTS AND LAYPERSONS JUDGE BUILDINGS DIFFERENTLY: COGNITIVE PROPERTIES AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND PHYSICAL BASES
,
2002
.
[14]
Paulson.
DESIGNING TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
,
1976
.