黑洞社区

SPONSORED FEATURE

The target for all central government contracts above 拢5m to use BIM level 2 by 2016 has galvanised uptake of this previously niche technology, and now companies across the construction industry are looking to see how they can use 黑洞社区 Information Modelling to drive efficiencies in design and construction processes.

The promise of BIM is of design teams collaborating seamlessly over virtual models of structures before they鈥檝e been built, detecting any clashes before construction starts, and recording who has done what and when. So it is natural that BIM has excited much interest around its implications for the cost of insurance: if the risks of projects running into problems can be reduced, and responsibility for mistakes can be pinpointed more quickly, then surely the adoption of BIM could reduce personal indemnity insurance premiums?

This question was at the heart of an online seminar hosted by 黑洞社区 magazine and insurer Zurich. But the answer, it seems, is not so simple. Speaking at the seminar Andy Penny, construction underwriting manager at Zurich, said that after canvassing colleagues, clients and rival insurers he came back with a range of answers - including that an initial confusion over roles in a BIM environment could actually increase claims costs, while others maintained that clearer audit trails and better design co-ordination enabling fewer building defects could act in the other direction.

鈥淢y initial conclusion is that all of those could be true, which may sound strange because a number of those things are contradictory.

鈥淭he question is will BIM drive down insurance cost? Everyone has an opinion but nobody really knows. Everyone鈥檚 in a state of flux.鈥�

However, he is certainly not anticipating a rapid increase in premiums. Penny says that under BIM level 2, in which different parties work on their own models, which are then combined at specific points in the design process, the level of design risk individual consultants are taking on should not differ radically from that under existing contracts. And this applies even where a party is the designated 鈥渋nformation manager鈥� for the project, because this role entails marshalling the information processing, but not validating the designs themselves. So the insurer doesn鈥檛 see a greatly increased risk - or premium.

His view was supported at the seminar by Andrew Marsh, construction partner at law firm DAC Beechcroft, who says the contractual risks in terms of liability for problems should remain largely as they were. 鈥淚n traditional construction, design should take place within a defined contractual framework to ensure proper function, responsibility and accountability. [In a BIM environment] these standard form contracts are applicable, but they do need some adaptation.

In theory, greater collaboration should mean a better integrated project and less clash issues. but it depends on how clear protocols are

鈥淚t isn鈥檛 a sea of the unknown out there, there is a framework available, and there are recognised ports of reference where the legal issues can be properly addressed.鈥�
This is addressed by the BIM protocol, produced by the Construction Industry Council last year, which sits above standard legal documents on projects in a BIM environment. But while this is designed to be as straightforward as possible, it necessarily adds a layer of process to manage. Penny says: 鈥淚n theory, greater collaboration should mean a better integrated project and less clash issues. But it depends on how clear the BIM protocols are and how closely they are followed.鈥�

The question is more whether the potential benefits will ever materialise. 鈥淚t鈥檇 be lovely to think we can drive out defects with this process and that reduced claims will lead to reduced premiums,鈥� Penny adds. 鈥淎re we there yet? No. Will we get there? I鈥檓 an optimist, I think we will, but this is a first step on a very long road.鈥�

And this is without mentioning higher levels of BIM usage, with level 3 seeing disparate teams collaborate over a single shared model, which could complicate accountability for changes to the model. Penny says: 鈥淎t level 2 the comfort is provided by the fact it is a federated model - so it is traceable and it is accountable. As it moves up the chain to higher levels [of BIM] then that鈥檚 when insurers will start to get nervous, there鈥檚 still a great deal of uncertainty about that.鈥�

SME case study

Chris Mitchell, a director at small architect AWW gave the seminar the perspective of what happens when a small business decides to move its entire processes over to BIM. When polled, 89% of the viewers of the webinar said BIM would revolutionise how construction firms operate. But a similar proportion, 90%, said it was daunting for SME firms.

Mitchell, whose business has been on a 鈥渧ery difficult鈥� six-year investment programme to skill-up for BIM, said it was now really paying dividends. 鈥淪ix or seven years ago we assumed we鈥檇 only use it on large new build projects, but now we use it on all our projects of all sizes. The big thing that it gives us is ease of use early on for 3D modelling, which then gives us more design time.鈥�

But he cautions against jumping on the bandwagon:鈥漌e鈥檝e decided to invest in this technology to reap the benefit for us. People have to identify why they鈥檙e doing it for their own efficiencies, rather than just to comply with a government target.鈥�

And he says it is important to make sure you can trust all the information that parties upload. 鈥淭he key thing to understand is that it鈥檚 鈥榬ubbish in, rubbish out鈥�. Without the correct data going in, you鈥檙e not going to get the right information coming out. That鈥檚 what we鈥檙e grappling with.鈥�