General Buildings Information 

Handover Guide:

Principles, Methodology and Case Studies

NISTIR 7417

Project Leaders: 

Kristine K. Fallon

 Mark E. Palmer 

In Cooperation with: 

FIATECH
 
 

NISTIR 7417

General Buildings Information 

Handover Guide:

Principles, Methodology and Case Studies

An Industry Sector Guide of the Information 

Handover Guide Series

Kristine K. Fallon

Kristine Fallon Associates, Inc. 

Mark E. Palmer 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST 

August 2007

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

William Jeffrey, Director 
 
ii 

Acknowledgments 

This document is the result of a number of organizations and individuals cooperating to define 

information strategies, analyze case studies and document the benefits and pitfalls of electronic 

information handover in the general buildings sector. The individuals listed below contributed to 

this work. 

General Buildings Advisory Panel 

Joseph Burns Thornton Tomasetti 

Rob Dibble CH2M Hill 

Joseph Dietrich American Institute of Steel Construction 

Bill East U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development 

 Center 

Samir Emdanat GHAFARI 

Luke Faulkner American Institute of Steel Construction 

Stephen Hagan General Services Administration 

Robert Mauck GHAFARI 

Alex Maxim NBBJ 

David McLean Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. 

Tony Rinella Anshen+Allen, Architects 

Darren Rizza Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP 

Dana K. Smith DKS Information Consulting, LLC 

Other Industry Sources 

Charles Eastman Georgia Institute of Technology, Design Computing Group 

Richard Jackson FIATECH 

Laird Landis General Motors 

Industry Reviewers 

Jim Forester Newforma, Inc. 

Charles Hardy General Services Administration 

Peggy Ho General Services Administration 

Calvin Kam General Services Administration 

Robert Lipman National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Nicholas Nisbet AEC3 

Kent Reed National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Stacy Scopano Tekla 

Richard See Digital Alchemy 

Jeffrey Wix AEC3 

Disclaimer: 

Certain trade names or company products are mentioned in the text to specify adequately the 

procedures and software used. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the 

software is the best available for the purpose. 
iii 
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 

1. WHY AN INFORMATION HANDOVER GUIDE? 3

1.1 Advances in Information Technology 3

1.2 Business Case for the Use of Interoperable Building Information Models 3

1.3 Examples of Benefits 4

1.3.1 Daylight and Energy Analysis 5

1.3.2 Cost Analysis 5

1.3.3 Supply Chain Integration 6

1.3.4 3D Coordination 7

1.3.5 Handover to Operations and Maintenance 7

1.3.5.1 IFC Model Based Operations and Maintenance 7

1.3.5.2 Construction Operations Building Information Exchange 8

1.4 Challenges to Achieving Benefits 8

2. GENERAL BUILDINGS INDUSTRY BACKGROUND 10

2.1 Handover Process 10

2.2 Current Process 10

2.2.1 Schematic Design 11

2.2.2 Design Development 11

2.2.3 Construction Documents 11

2.2.4 Bid Phase 11

2.2.5 Construction Phase 11

2.2.6 Closeout/ Commissioning 12

2.2.7 Operations and Maintenance 12

2.3 Changes in Project Delivery 12

2.3.1 Design Optimization 13

2.3.2 Construction Optimization 14

2.3.3 Construction Orchestration 14

2.3.4 Operations and Maintenance 14

2.4 Industry Roadmaps for Implementing Change 15

2.4.1 Steps Toward External Process Integration 16

2.4.2 FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Roadmap 16

2.4.3 ROADCON Roadmap 18

2.4.4 Roadmaps from Multiple Organizations Compared 19

3. KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMS 21

3.1 Interoperability 21

3.2 Information Forms and Formats 22
v 

3.2.1 Unstructured Form 22

3.2.2 Structured Form 22

3.2.3 Proprietary Format 23

3.2.4 Standard Format 23

3.3 Using Standard Structured Formats 24

3.3.1 Defining Model Views 25

3.3.1.1 BLIS 25

3.3.1.2 GSA 26

3.3.1.3 NBIMS 26

3.3.1.4 COBIE 26

3.3.1.5 CIS/2 – IFC Harmonization 26

3.3.1.6 Information Delivery Manuals 27

3.3.1.7 IFC Model View Definition Toolset and Process 28

3.3.2 Other Standard Structured Formats 28

3.3.2.1 AEX 28

3.3.2.2 AGCxml 29

3.3.2.3 gbXML 29

3.3.2.4 ifcXML 29

3.3.2.5 OSCRE 29

3.3.2.6 OGC 29

3.3.3 Additional Information Sources 30

3.4 Classification, Metadata and Dictionaries 30

3.4.1 Classification 30

3.4.2 Metadata 30

3.4.2.1 Descriptive Metadata 30

3.4.2.2 Administrative Metadata 30

3.4.2.3 Structural Metadata 31

3.4.2.4 Standards for Metadata 31

3.4.3 Dictionaries 31

4. CASE STUDIES OF INFORMATION HANDOVER 32

4.1 Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium Hall 600 32

4.1.1 Benefits Realized 32

4.1.2 Who Benefited 33

4.1.3 Information Packages Exchanged 33

4.1.4 Issues Identified 35

4.1.5 Recommendations for Future Efforts 35

4.2 General Motors Virtual Factory Initiative 35

4.2.1 Benefits Realized 36

4.2.2 Who Benefited 36

4.2.3 Information Packages Exchanged 36

4.2.4 Issues Identified 39

4.2.5 Recommendations for Future Efforts 39

4.3 The Adaptive Re-Use of Soldier Field 39

4.3.1 Benefits Realized 40

4.3.2 Information Packages Exchanged 40

4.3.3 Issues Identified 42

4.3.4 Recommendations for Future Efforts 42

4.4 Harborview Medical Center Expansion 42
vi 

4.4.1 Benefits Realized 43

4.4.2 Information Packages Exchanged 43

4.4.3 Issues Identified 45

4.4.4 Recommendations for Future Efforts 45

4.5 Wellcome Trust, UK 45

4.5.1 Benefits Realized 46

4.5.2 Information Packages Exchanged 46

4.5.3 Issues Identified 48

4.5.4 Recommendations for Future Efforts 48

4.6 Buckley Army Aviation Support Facility 48

4.6.1 Benefits Realized 49

4.6.2 Who Benefited 49

4.6.3 Information Packages Exchanged 49

4.6.4 Issues Identified 51

4.6.5 Recommendations for Future Efforts 51

5. PLANNING, EXECUTING AND MANAGING INFORMATION HANDOVERS 52

5.1 Overview 52

5.2 Information Strategies 53

5.2.1 Information Strategies for the General Buildings Sector 53

5.2.2 Contents of the Information Strategy 55

5.3 Information Handover Requirements 56

5.3.1 Applying an Existing Standard 56

5.3.2 Uses of Information Packages 56

5.4 Project Information Handover Plan 58

5.4.1 Developing the Project Information Handover Plan 58

5.4.2 From General to Specific 58

5.4.3 Balancing Costs and Benefits 59

5.4.4 Handover Plan Contents 60

5.4.5 Information Quality Considerations 60

5.4.6 Information Quality Management 61

5.4.7 Logistics 62

5.4.8 New Project Roles 62

5.4.9 Handover Methods 62

5.4.10 Data Transfer Methods 63

5.4.11 Timing 63

5.4.12 Responsibilities 63

5.4.13 Storing and Preserving Handover Information 64

5.5 Implementation of the Project Information Handover 64

5.5.1 Business Considerations 64

5.5.1.1 Project Information Manager 65

5.5.1.2 Contractual Terms 66

5.5.1.3 Liability and Insurance 66

5.5.2 Technical Implementation 66

5.5.2.1 Configuration Management 67

5.5.2.2 Testing 67

5.5.2.3 Documentation of Best Practices and Project Procedures 67

5.5.2.4 Staffing and Training 67
vii 

5.5.2.5 Compliance Checking 68

5.5.2.6 Continuous Improvement Program 68

5.6 Handover Lessons Learned By Early Adopters 68

5.6.1 Challenges 68

5.6.1.1 Commercial Issues 68

5.6.1.2 Expectations 68

5.6.1.3 Change Management 68

5.6.1.4 Immature Technology 69

5.6.1.5 Inadequate Technology Infrastructure 69

5.6.2 Keys to Success 69

5.6.2.1 Human Factors 69

5.6.2.2 Quality of Collaboration 69

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE EFFORTS 70

7. APPENDICES 72

7.1 APPENDIX A – Benefits Chart 72

7.2 APPENDIX B – Glossary 75

7.3 APPENDIX C – Bibliography 80

7.4 APPENDIX D – Links to Information Delivery Specifications and Standards 83

7.5 APPENDIX E – Organizations that Promote Interoperability 88
 

Executive Summary 

The 2004 Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) report, Collaboration, Integrated Information 

and the Project Life Cycle in Building Design, Construction and Operation (WP-1202), makes 

clear that there is a compelling need to improve project delivery. “Building owners, particularly 

those represented within CURT, regularly experience project schedule and cost overruns.” The 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study Cost Analysis of Inadequate 

Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry (NIST GCR 04-867) makes clear that all 

stakeholders in the capital facilities industry – designers, contractors, product suppliers and 

owners – are wasting a huge amount of money looking for, validating and/or recreating facility 

information that should be readily available. For example, the study estimated that operations 

and maintenance personnel spent US $4.8 billion during 2002, verifying that documentation 

accurately represented existing conditions, and another US $613 million transferring that 

information into a useful format. 

These are two major business drivers that are leading the general buildings industry to adopt a 

more advanced technological approach to designing, documenting and constructing capital 

facilities. It is clear from the case studies assembled for this guide and from the input of the 

General Buildings Advisory Panel that these advanced technologies are yielding the desired 

results. 

So far, major successes have been recorded using highly accurate and complete 3D building 

models for interference checking and linking to construction schedules. These successes can be 

attributed to the relative maturity of 3D modeling and viewing technology as well as the 

availability of tools for accurately translating geometry between proprietary formats and for 

merging 3D models created in multiple formats in an integration environment. 

Some progress has also been made in the area of intelligent building modeling, which captures 

the properties of building components as well as their geometry, permitting direct, machineinterpretable input to other applications, such as analysis programs. A major success in this 

regard has been the American Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC) CIMSteel Integration 

Standards/Version 2 (CIS/2) initiative, which has proven to enhance the quality and speed of 

information flow throughout the steel supply chain. 

Because design and construction operations in the general buildings industry are carried out by 

project teams comprising multiple organizations, data interoperability across a heterogeneous 

software landscape is necessary. In order for that interoperability to be achieved, the domain 

experts in the general buildings industry must reach a consensus on key information-supported 

work processes and the information required by those processes. Data modeling experts must 

then develop specifications for how the information should be encoded using structured data 

standards such as the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) Industry Foundation 

Classes (IFCs). Finally, these specifications must be implemented in commercial software and 

test cases must be created to determine if software implementations comply with these data 

exchange specifications. 
2 

Recently, a great deal of work has been done to define methodologies and tools for documenting 

the information requirements of design, construction and facility management processes. Major 

initiatives in this regard include IAI buildingSMART and the U.S. National Building Information 

Modeling Standard (NBIMS). There are also efforts on roadmaps for the adoption of building 

information modeling, e.g., FIATECH, the European Commission, the Associated General 

Contractors of America, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Coast Guard, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Singapore. Leaders 

in the industry are adopting value stream mapping and information flow analysis. These are the 

first steps in creating the ability to streamline information flow through each business process 

while at the same time maintaining and improving the ability to share information between 

business processes. Research shows that these actions contribute to successful building projects. 

For the industry and users of information systems, this is a period of both promise and peril. 

There are compelling business cases for moving forward with these advanced technologies, but 

many stumbling blocks remain. The purpose of this guide is to assist users and developers of 

building information and information systems in the general buildings industry in making good 

use of advanced technology and avoiding the pitfalls, particularly those encountered in 

information handovers between parties. To this end, the guide discusses the general buildings 

industry’s need for such assistance, offers background information on the industry’s traditional 

and emerging business processes, provides a primer on the technology concepts and terminology 

and presents six case studies of the use of advanced design and construction technologies and the 

attendant information handovers. The guide then elucidates a methodology, developed in its 

companion publication, the Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide (CFIHG) Part 1, for 

achieving successful and cost-effective information handovers in a heterogeneous environment. 

It suggests a hybrid approach combining data exchanges in proprietary and standard formats to 

meet the different requirements of enterprises. The final section offers analysis of the state of the 

technology and recommendations for the next steps. 
3 

1. Why an Information Handover Guide? 

Since the late 1990’s, there has been increasing pressure on the global capital facilities industry 

to perform more efficiently. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) study, 

Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry (referred to 

as NIST GCR 04-867) identified and quantified the efficiency losses in the U.S. capital facilities 

industry attributable to inadequate interoperability. Interoperability is defined as “the ability to 

manage and communicate electronic product and project data between collaborating firms and 

within individual companies’ design, construction, maintenance, and business process systems.” 

The researchers very conservatively estimated those losses to be US $15.8 billion in 2002. This 

figure excludes the losses for residential facilities and transportation infrastructure. 

1.1 Advances in Information Technology 

At the same time, the early years of the 21st century heralded the introduction of a new 

generation of software to the general buildings industry. This new generation of software is 

capable of producing an intelligent building description, or Building Information Model (BIM). 

Although the BIM concept is not new, technology advances have made it commercially feasible. 

According to the U.S. National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), “Building Information 

Modeling (BIM) is a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility. 

A BIM is a shared knowledge resource for information about a facility forming a reliable basis 

for decisions during its life-cycle; defined as existing from earliest conception to demolition. A 

basic premise of BIM is collaboration by different stakeholders at different phases of the life 

cycle of a facility to insert, extract, update or modify information in the BIM to support and 

reflect the roles of that stakeholder.” 

From the perspective of this guide, there are two important aspects of BIM: 

1. The single, non-redundant information repository supports a broad range of activities in 

the building life cycle, including design, analysis, cost estimating, procurement, detailing, 

construction simulation, construction/ erection, maintenance and operation. 

Interoperability is a non-negotiable requirement of such a data store. 

2. Managing models of this size and complexity cannot be done manually. Thus, BIM data 

must be structured data, capable of machine-interpretation. 

1.2 Business Case for the Use of Interoperable Building Information 

Models 

Based on the experience of early adopters, the use of interoperable building information models: 

• Speeds informed design decision-making 

• Permits rapid iteration of simulations of building performance and construction 

sequencing 

• Streamlines information flow and reduces time-to-complete in certain supply chains, e.g., 

steel 

• Substantially reduces field problems and material waste during construction 
4 

• Makes feasible the off-site fabrication in controlled environments of larger percentages of 

the building components and assemblies, increasing their quality and longevity, and 

• Reduces on-site construction activities and materials staging, creating a less crowded and 

safer site. 

In addition, key owners have recognized the potential for capturing the information needed to 

fine-tune building system performance, establish appropriate maintenance practices and 

schedules and evaluate the feasibility of proposed expansions or renovations. 

Thus, the adoption of this approach holds benefits for all stakeholders in the full facility life 

cycle and improves outcomes in three major dimensions of performance: cost, schedule and 

quality. 

Recognizing this, the Construction Users Roundtable (CURT), the Associated General 

Contractors of America (AGC) and the American Institute of Architects (AIA) established a 

collaborative working group, the 3xPT Strategy Group, in 2006. The group promotes efforts 

across traditional industry stakeholder boundaries to leverage the use of 3D, 4D (time) and 5D 

(cost) modeling and other intelligent technologies. CURT, AGC, and AIA have joined together 

to work with the industry as a whole to help shape the future as it relates to using available 

technology, collaborating to the fullest extent and maximizing project productivity. 

3xPT’s charter is to be a credible voice representing the collaboration of constructors, designers 

and owners on matters regarding industry process transformation. It carries a vision of a 

transformed and sustainable construction industry, where each project is designed, developed 

and delivered to optimize value across its life cycle. 3xPT sees its mission as creating 

transformational strategies and developing implementation frameworks that: 

• Define value sets or criteria 

• Engage all stakeholders 

• Promote open sharing of information 

• Communicate benefits of transformed industry processes 

1.3 Examples of Benefits 

Appendix A outlines the benefits of BIM throughout different stages of the life cycle of a capital 

facility, including which specific parties benefit at each stage. 

Time and quality benefits during design were documented in a pilot conducted by a collaborative 

team including Anshen+Allen, Architects, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and 

Webcor Builders. The focus was in two areas: energy performance and construction costs, which 

are important and sometimes competing considerations in the design of the building enclosure. 

The BIM-based collaboration was performed in parallel with a more traditional project 

documentation and analysis approach used to deliver the project to the client. This provided an 

opportunity to compare experiences and quantify efficiencies. The team achieved compelling 

results demonstrating significant efficiency gains through use of interoperable virtual design 

tools. 
5 

1.3.1 Daylight and Energy Analysis 

Following the traditional process, the architect forwarded 2D electronic drawings to the façade 

engineer who interpreted the design documents, constructed a 3D model, analyzed performance, 

wrote a narrative predicting the performance of the proposed design and also suggested strategies 

for improvement. The results were presented to the architects in two weeks. Working with the 

architect’s BIM published in the International Alliance for Interoperability’s (IAI) Industry 

Foundation Class (IFC) format, the team at LBNL applied a simulation program, and reported 

preliminary results the next day. Following design changes, LBNL provided energy and daylight 

analysis including performance graphs and shading illustrations of the new configuration in two 

days (see Figure 1-1). 

Figure 1-1: Medical Clinic Solar Analysis – Traditional vs. Information Handover Process 

(Courtesy Tony Rinella, Anshen+Allen, Architects) 

1.3.2 Cost Analysis 

Using the traditional 2D-based process, the cost consultant delivered a cost estimate three weeks 

after the architect provided design concept drawings. The virtual building process with Webcor 

Builders differed in two important aspects. Initially, Webcor Builders generated a preliminary 

cost estimate by extracting quantities directly from the Anshen+Allen, Architects BIM. They 

also provided the architect with specific building elements including curtain wall assemblies, 

columns and floor slabs which were associated directly with their internal proprietary cost 
6 

history database. With known components and assemblies incorporated in the BIM, they were 

able to provide preliminary cost estimates of two design alternatives in one day (see Figure 1-2). 

Figure 1-2: Medical Clinic Cost Analysis – Traditional vs. Information Handover Process 

(Courtesy Tony Rinella, Anshen+Allen, Architects) 

The interoperable BIM supported rapid, reliable analysis of design options and encouraged new 

forms of collaboration between team members. Use of interoperable tools dramatically decreased 

the wasteful rework required to move models between design and analysis systems and provided 

more detailed and actionable feedback from those analyses. 

1.3.3 Supply Chain Integration 

Benefits can also be distributed throughout the supply chain. A leader in this approach is the 

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), which in 1999 launched and funded a multiyear initiative to promote Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) throughout the structural steel 

industry and thus improve the competitiveness of the material by reducing schedule time needed 

to get steel in place. AISC built on the work of the European CIMsteel initiative (1987-1998), 

adopting CIMsteel Integration Standard, Release 2 (CIS/2) for the exchange of structured 

information for 3D modeling, analysis, interference/ clash detection, detailing, fabrication, 

erection, procurement, construction planning and scheduling. AISC has also been active in 

documenting the benefits of EDI. 
7 

An early and impressive success story was the Soldier Field reconstruction project. Structural 

engineers Thornton-Tomasetti undertook a 3D modeling approach with electronic information 

handovers throughout the steel supply chain to enable the stadium’s construction to be completed 

17 percent faster than industry best performance. The 3D steel model was used for validating the 

steel geometry and identifying interferences with other building systems during design, 

providing quantity take-offs during the bidding phase, being updated with connection design and 

detailing and passed to Computerized Numerical Control (CNC) fabrication processes. It was 

also used in digital surveying equipment to position steel during construction. 

AISC has documented several projects where the schedule has been compressed through the use 

of similar electronic information handovers. Avoidance of field interferences through 

interference checking with architectural elements and building systems has proven to be another 

major benefit. 

1.3.4 3D Coordination 

General Motors (GM), assisted by Ghafari Associates as architect/ engineer (AE) and technology 

integrator, debuted a Virtual Factory initiative in 2004, attempting to apply the principles of Lean 

Manufacturing to construction. A key element of this strategy was direct electronic interchange 

of information rather than reliance on drawings. Between 2004 and 2006, GM undertook four 

projects, pushing the automation envelope with each. By the second project, a 455,000 square 

foot assembly plant, they achieved zero construction change orders due to building component 

interferences. That project was also completed five weeks ahead of schedule with no field 

overtime. Unanticipated benefits were six-figure savings on trash disposal, due to reduced waste, 

as well as fewer accidents on the job site. The direction emerging from this experience is to build 

directly from the model, developed to 1⁄4 inch tolerances. By the third project, the team had 

moved to a 3D-based review process and totally eliminated 2D drawings from the steel designdetail-fabricate-erect process. 

1.3.5 Handover to Operations and Maintenance 

Since BIM is a relatively new idea in the general buildings industry, there has, as yet, been little 

opportunity for owners to quantify benefits in the operations and maintenance phase. There are, 

however, two notable projects that seek to reduce the cost and improve the quality of the 

information handover to operations and maintenance. 

1.3.5.1 IFC Model Based Operations and Maintenance 

The U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) sponsored a project, IFC Model Based 

Operations and Maintenance (ifc-mBomb), to demonstrate improved information flow 

throughout design and construction as well as handover to operations and maintenance, through 

the use of the IFC data format for information exchanges and the maintenance a single data 

model managed by a model server. A model server is software that enables complete models to 

be imported and exported, but also supports real-time data sharing among a number of software 

applications. The goal was to provide proof of concept and encourage commercial software 

implementations. The project was led by Taylor Woodrow Construction. Technology consultants 

were AEC3. Results were reported in 2004. 
8 

The team used a real world project to demonstrate capability. One targeted result was the 

elimination of the delay and cost involved in populating a facility management (FM) system. 

This was estimated for a typical hospital as 6-12 months and more than £200,000. 

For the handover to FM system capability presentation, the scenario involved taking room data 

sheet information created by the client and architect and populating a FM system with the room 

requirements data. The scenario’s “design team” then created the BIM, based on the 2D 

drawings created by the original design team. They focused primarily on the building services 

(mechanical, electrical, plumbing) for the two story auditorium within a tertiary (community) 

college building, iterating the design and detailing with a number of software applications 

sharing the same common building model. The team then generated a handover package 

comprising schedules of the spaces and mechanical systems that included instances, types and 

operational instructions. They were also able to load comprehensive asset information into a 

commercial Asset Management System. Both of these processes were completed in a few 

minutes, fully automatically. There was no re-keying whatsoever. 

1.3.5.2 Construction Operations Building Information Exchange 

The Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE) project, with funding 

from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is creating standardized 

content and format for information handover to operations and maintenance as part of the U.S. 

National BIM Standard (NBIMS). The COBIE approach envisions capturing this information 

incrementally throughout the facility planning, design and construction processes. This approach 

contrasts to current Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS 01781), which require project 

contractors to assemble and scan documents for electronic handover at project closeout. In 

discussions with the COBIE team, Naval Facilities Command (NAVFAC) estimated the cost of 

gathering the UFGS data at US $40,000 per project. By capturing the information in the correct 

format at the source, the COBIE project aims to eliminate this cost. More information about 

COBIE can be found in Section 3.3.1.4. 

1.4 Challenges to Achieving Benefits 

Today, project teams are engaging in information handovers on a daily basis. Many are even 

exchanging BIM data. However, this process is neither automated nor seamless. It works if a 

motivated team devotes several manweeks to defining the information to be exchanged and the 

protocols for doing so. Often, the BIM is incomplete for its intended downstream use and must 

be augmented by verbal or text explanations and information. There are still technical issues to 

be overcome, particularly if a two-way exchange of intelligent model data is the goal. 

In 2004, the NIST study NIST GCR 04-867 quantified the cost of these efforts at US $15.8 

billion annually. Costs were categorized as: 

• Avoidance – costs incurred to prevent or minimize the impact of technical 

interoperability problems 

• Mitigation – costs of activities responding to interoperability problems, including 

scrapped materials costs, and 

• Delay – costs incurred when interoperability problems delay completion of a project or 

the length of time a facility is not in normal operation 
9 

The goal of the General Buildings Information Handover Guide (GBIHG) is to assist 

organizations involved in the capital facilities information life cycle to develop standardized and 

repeatable approaches to information handover, avoid major pitfalls and reduce, if not eliminate, 

the costs of inadequate interoperability. 
10 

2. General Buildings Industry Background 

2.1 Handover Process 

The Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide (CFIHG) Part 1 describes six major phases 

in the life cycle: 

1. Planning and Programming 

2. Design 

3. Construction 

4. Project Closeout/ Commissioning 

5. Operations and Maintenance 

6. Disposal 

Traditionally, these phases have been seen as sequential (see Figure 2-1), with defined handover 

points between phases and additional information flows (smaller arrows in Figure 2-1). In the 

past few years, however, there has been a rethinking of the planning/ design/ construction 

phases. This has been prompted to a great extent by the realization on the part of all industry 

players that the delivery of capital projects can and should be improved and also by owner 

dissatisfaction with project outcomes. These changes to project phasing have been enabled by 

advances in information technology. 

Figure 2-1: Major Phases in the Capital Facility LifeCycle 

(Source: Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide Part 1, NISTIR 7259) 

2.2 Current Process 

The traditional sequence of design activities and the deliverables of each step are articulated in 
11 

standard contracts between owners and designers. An example is the American Institute of 

Architects’ (AIA) B141 – 1997, which breaks design into four phases: schematic design, design 

development, construction documents and bidding. 

2.2.1 Schematic Design 

In schematic design, the owner and designer establish the program, schedule and budget for the 

project. The facility design is articulated to the extent of determining the size and relationship of 

project components and the preliminary selection of major building systems and construction 

materials. The deliverables – “information handover” – of the traditional schematic design phase 

are drawings and other documents illustrating the scale and relationship of project components. 

2.2.2 Design Development 

Based on the approved schematic design and the owner’s construction schedule and budget, the 

designer establishes the form, size and character of the project in terms of architectural, 

structural, mechanical and electrical systems and construction materials. The handover of this 

phase is traditionally a set of drawings that document size, form and arrangement as well as 

specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish their general quality level. 

2.2.3 Construction Documents 

This phase is defined by its handover: the construction documents. Based on the approved design 

development documents and any further adjustments in the scope or quality of the project or in 

the construction budget authorized by the owner, the design firm prepares, for owner approval, 

construction drawings and specifications detailing the requirements for the construction of the 

project and the quality levels of materials and systems required. The design firm also addresses 

building codes and other jurisdictional requirements. Under the standard design contract, the 

design firm defines what is to be built but has no responsibility for how it can or should be 

constructed. The how is the responsibility of the contractor. Many think that this differentiation 

introduces inefficiencies and quality problems in project delivery. 

2.2.4 Bid Phase 

The design firm assists the owner by: 

• Establishing a list of prospective bidders or contractors 

• Obtaining either competitive bids or negotiated proposals 

• Validating and evaluating those bids or proposals 

2.2.5 Construction Phase 

In traditional design-bid-build project delivery, the lead design firm administers the construction 

contract between the owner and the contractor and reports to the owner on project progress and 

quality. However, the design firm has no control over or responsibility for the construction 

means, methods, techniques, sequences or for site safety. These are solely the contractor's 

responsibilities. The handovers from the construction phase are the actual constructed facility 

plus, in traditional project delivery, information about the operation and maintenance of the 

building’s equipment, systems and finishes. The latter information is provided in contractor 

submittals, which are defined in the specifications. 
12 

2.2.6 Closeout/ Commissioning 

In the closeout/ commissioning phase, the owner accepts the construction work and processes the 

contractor’s final payment. The contractor hands over all required documentation. The 

operations and maintenance staff may also receive training on the building systems and 

equipment. 

In a traditional project closeout, information handover focuses on documentation (primarily 

drawings) of the facility as built, actual project costs and schedule compared to plan, spare parts 

lists, maintenance products and requirements, equipment and systems training and operations 

manuals. These handover requirements are defined in the construction documents, which form 

part of the contract between the owner and the contractor, and the information is handed over, 

frequently as paper documents, by the construction team. 

Commissioning is the systematic process of ensuring and documenting that all systems and 

assemblies perform according to specification and end user requirements, as well as the owner's 

operational needs. With facility commissioning, the information requirements derive from earlier 

facility life cycle phases. The original facility program defines requirements in terms of the 

functional, environmental and economic needs of the owner and of the persons using the facility. 

During the design phase, those needs are translated into physical reality and a wealth of 

information is produced beyond what is handed off to construction. Effective commissioning 

practices demand that the information requirements of the commissioning phase be considered 

from the moment of project conception and that those requirements be captured and documented 

every step along the way. 

2.2.7 Operations and Maintenance 

The operations and maintenance phase generates its own information base, which can be used to 

improve facility performance and informs decisions about expanding or disposing of the facility. 

This information includes production or occupancy levels, service requests, maintenance 

schedules, inspection reports, work orders, equipment downtime, operating costs and 

maintenance costs. Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) and Enterprise 

Asset Management Systems (EAMS) are two types of software products that facilitate the 

management of operations and maintenance information, from the physical and financial views 

respectively, and make that information accessible to support facility-related decisions. 

2.3 Changes in Project Delivery 

The Construction Users Roundtable’s (CURT) Architectural/ Engineering Productivity 

Committee concluded in Collaboration, Integrated Information and the Project Lifecycle in 

Building Design, Construction and Operation, “The goal of everyone in the industry should be 

better, faster, more capable project delivery created by fully integrated, collaborative project 

teams. Owners must be the ones to drive this change, by leading the creation of collaborative, 

cross-functional teams comprised of design, construction and facility management 

professionals.” 

A major tenet of an improved project delivery approach is to bring procurement construction and 

operations expertise into the early stages of design decision-making. The AIA has termed this 

approach “Integrated Practice” and in 2005 launched a multi-prong initiative to encourage and 
13 

support this approach. Integrated practice does not so much change the roles and responsibilities 

of the various parties (i.e., owner, designer, contractor) but rather brings forward the construction 

and operations points of view early in design decision making so that concerns such as life cycle 

costs, maintainability, material availability, constructability, construction sequencing and staging 

are taken into account. 

This approach has been endorsed by CURT in their publication Optimizing the Construction 

Process: An Implementation Strategy (WP 1003) as well as by the Associated General 

Contractors of America (AGC) in The Contractor’s Guide to BIM, Edition 1. 

The basic tenets of this approach echo the principles of reengineering defined by Hammer and 

Champy in Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, particularly: 

• Capture information once; avoid redundant data entry. The use of the intelligent 

building model to provide input to multiple analyses facilitates a higher degree of design 

optimization by eliminating the need to constantly re-enter the same basic building 

information into each program. This improves quality as well, ensuring that all analyses 

are performed on the same building information. 

• Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results. Producing rapid, iterative 

cost estimates from the design model and merging the 3D geometry with the proposed 

construction schedule to visualize and optimize construction sequencing are examples of 

concurrent activities that were never before possible. 

• Let one person perform a work process from beginning to end. Allowing the 

suppliers and subcontractors who will provide and install the components to actually 

develop the virtual building components to be included in the construction model gives 

them the greatest flexibility in meeting requirements and improves the dimensional 

accuracy of the model. 

• Build control into the process. The use of 3D review sessions to highlight interferences 

before components are fabricated reduces the cost and time required for resolution in the 

field. Some projects using this technique have reported zero change orders due to clashes 

between building system components encountered in the field. 

The emerging project delivery process compresses the design/ construction into three major, 

collaborative and integrated activities: Design Optimization, Construction Optimization, and 

Construction Orchestration. 

2.3.1 Design Optimization 

The first phase in the new process involves an intensive and iterative period of deciding what 

should be built. The use of advanced analysis software in all areas – structures, energy 

consumption, lighting and daylighting analysis, air flow (CFD) analysis to determine thermal 

comfort, cost estimating and life cycle cost analysis – all deriving the project description from an 

intelligent building model, leads to an optimized design solution. Contractor- or subcontractordeveloped components may be incorporated into the model at this point to ensure more accurate 

cost estimates and analyses. Because the Building Information Model (BIM) includes 

comprehensive 3D geometric definitions, it also allows visualization of facility appearance, 

function and context. This visualization capability has proven extremely powerful in expediting 

design decisions and communicating with all stakeholders, including the public. 
14 

The information handed over from this design process is a model, or series of related, disciplinespecific models, that describe(s) the facility form, structure and building systems. Very specific 

materials, products and assemblies may be incorporated in the model(s). 

2.3.2 Construction Optimization 

The next phase is determining how to build the facility. This involves contractors, subcontractors 

and fabricators in a computer-based virtual construction process. The time-consuming process of 

shop drawing review is replaced by electronic submittals and a 3D review process. Supply chain 

or cost considerations may prompt changes in systems or components, which are fed back to 

design analysis. During this phase, the spatial aspects of the model are of greatest interest. If 

multiple, discipline-specific models have been created for analysis, their geometry is merged. 

Design elements in the model are replaced by the actual components proposed by fabricators and 

subcontractors. Interferences are resolved; 4D techniques allow for construction sequence 

planning and avoidance of construction interferences. When both the detailed definition of 

building components is complete and the process for erecting and installing them have been 

choreographed, the physical construction begins. 

The handover from this preconstruction phase is a completely detailed geometric model of the 

building, with each physical component identified and defined. The level of definition is such 

that many components can be fabricated from the model data. In addition, each component is 

sequenced in the construction schedule. 

2.3.3 Construction Orchestration 

The construction planning described above, combined with high-precision dimensional control 

on-site, leads to a highly predictable physical construction phase. Many more components can be 

shop-fabricated in a controlled environment, improving quality. Supply chain information is 

available to inform the project team of the status of the various components – have they been 

fabricated? Shipped? Delivered? There is little rework, reducing costs and improving morale. 

The results are significantly less waste, reduction in the number and duration of on-site activities, 

less requirement for laydown space and improved site safety. 

This approach is seen in the General Motors/ Ghafari projects, with excellent outcomes. It clearly 

changes the tidy packages of phased design deliverables to which the industry has become 

accustomed. The process demonstrates much concurrency and blurring of roles. For example, the 

steel fabricator may suggest member sizes with shorter lead times, with the structural engineers 

adjusting the design to accommodate those sizes. This new project delivery approach has often 

been undertaken in conjunction with a Lean Construction initiative. Lean Construction identifies 

and attempts to eliminate the seven forms of waste (see Section 3.2). 

2.3.4 Operations and Maintenance 

The information handed over from the construction phase includes the detailed geometric facility 

model, which has been updated throughout the construction process to reflect any changes. As of 

this writing, the model does not typically encapsulate the operations and maintenance 

information that traditionally is handed over in manuals, in either electronic or print format. A 

number of organizations are seeking to establish standards for non-proprietary and interoperable 

versions of the data needed for operations and maintenance. These organizations include 
15 

FIATECH, the U.S. National BIM Standard (NBIMS), the International Alliance for 

Interoperability (IAI) and the Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE). The 

Construction-Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE) effort, described further in 

Section 3.3.1.4, is the NBIMS component addressing this issue. The COBIE specification 

defines the information handover requirements for describing the physical materials, products 

and equipment that create the facility, including equipment locations and serial numbers, 

warranties and spare parts lists. 

2.4 Industry Roadmaps for Implementing Change 

In 2002, Uitgebreid Samenwerkingsverband Procesindustrie, Nederland (USPI-NL) laid out a 

Roadmap for reaching the goal of a fully integrated facility life cycle data repository, based on 

structured information standards. This Roadmap was documented in the Capital Facilities 

Information Handover Guide (CFIHG) Part 1. The Roadmap (see Figure 2-2) distinguishes 

between internal and external “data readiness.” The two are interdependent. A company must 

have achieved internal process integration before it can successfully achieve external process 

integration. At the same time, the market must provide the tools and standards to support 

external integration. This has frequently been called a “chicken and egg” problem. 

Internal Company Standards International Standards

WORK PROCESS STANDARDIZATION

SUB PROCESS OPTIMIZATION

INTERNAL PROCESS INTEGRATION

EXTERNAL PROCESS INTEGRATION

MATURING INTERCOMMUNITY EXCHANGE

INTERCOMMUNITY EXCHANGE

SMALL CLOSED COMMUNITIES

ONE TO ONE E-HANDOVER

2002 2 - 3 Years 5 Years

External

Internal

Data Readiness

Figure 2-2: USPI-NL Roadmap for Reaching the Goal of a Fully Integrated Facility Life Cycle 

Data Repository 
16 

2.4.1 Steps Toward External Process Integration 

Note that, on the external data readiness side, the emergence of “small closed communities” 

engaged in electronic information handovers precedes general intercommunity data exchange. 

The American Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC) CIMsteel Integration Standard, Release 2 

(CIS/2) initiative is an excellent example of such a step. The general buildings industry is now 

beginning to demonstrate a desire to tightly integrate the steel information model with the 

architectural and building systems models. 

The first steps in intercommunity information exchange in the general buildings industry revolve 

around 3D geometry. This makes sense, since tools for exchanging geometry between ComputerAided Design (CAD) systems have developed over a period of 20 years and are quite mature. 

Also, software has emerged that allows the loading of 3D geometry created in multiple CAD or 

BIM systems into an integration environment, without an intermediate translation step, where 

interferences between building systems and elements can be identified. This is the capability 

used by GM design/ build teams to achieve zero construction change orders due to building 

component interferences. 

The next step has been the addition of the element of time to the combined 3D model and this is 

called “4D”. 4D permits the animation of sequences such as project phasing, tenant moves and 

construction sequencing. The latter is achieved by linking elements of the 3D models to a 

construction schedule. 4D capability allows the detection of dynamic interferences, i.e., 

conditions where scheduled activities will get in each other’s way or temporary site conditions 

will block access. 

In the general buildings industry, the move to the exchange of true BIM intelligence is just 

beginning. This is where the external data readiness is not fully in place. 

2.4.2 FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Roadmap 

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Construction Industry 

Institute (CII) created FIATECH in 1999. FIATECH’s mission is to achieve significant cycletime and life cycle cost reductions and efficiencies in capital projects from concept to design, 

construction, operation, decommissioning and dismantling of facilities. The idea of Fully 

Integrated and Automated Project Processes (FIAPP) is key to the formation and mission of 

FIATECH. 
17 

Figure 2-3: FIATECH Capital Projects Technology Roadmap 

The FIATECH consortium launched the Capital Projects Technology Roadmap in 2001, and 

published a first draft in 2002. The generation of the roadmap was a result of a structured process 

with strong industry participation. The process was designed to: 

• Document a “current state assessment” of the industry from technology and business 

perspectives 

• Develop a “future state vision” that addressed the needs identified in the current state 

assessment 

• Develop a broad slate of technology-oriented goals and requirements to achieve the 

vision 

• Prioritize the goals and identify an initial set of near-term actions to initiate progress 

towards those goals 

The result was a broad roadmap, comprising “9 Elements” for transforming the delivery of 

capital facilities projects: 

• Element 1: Scenario-based Project Planning 

• Element 2: Automated Design 

• Element 3: Integrated and Automated Procurement & Supply Networks 
18 

• Element 4: Intelligent and Automated Construction Job Site 

• Element 5: Intelligent Self-maintaining and Repairing Operational Facility 

• Element 6: Real-time Project and Facility Management, Coordination and Control 

• Element 7: New Materials, Methods, Products & Equipment 

• Element 8: Technology- & Knowledge-enabled Workforce 

• Element 9: Lifecycle Data Management & Information Integration 

FIATECH is working with other organizations on portions of the tactical plans of that roadmap. 

So far, no dates have been set for achieving the specified capabilities. 

2.4.3 ROADCON Roadmap 

ROADCON is one of the nearly 30 strategic research and technology development (RTD) 

roadmap projects on "New Methods of Work and Electronic Commerce" launched by the 

European Commission in 2002. The aim of ROADCON was to develop a vision for an agile, 

model-based/ knowledge-driven construction industry and to prepare a roadmap towards 

achieving that vision. Like FIATECH, ROADCON documents a current state and a future vision 

for a dozen aspects of technology, process, human resources and legal/ contractual governance. 

ROADCON TOP LEVEL ROADMAP 

Current State Vision 

Customized Solutions Adaptive Systems 

LAN and Web Ambient Access 

Project Websites Collaborative Virtual Teams 

Mobile Phones Digital Site 

File-based Data Exchange Flexible Interoperability 

Technology Illiteracy Technology Skills and Awareness 

Re-invention Knowledge Sharing 

Paper-based Contractual Practice Legal and Contractual Governance 

Document-based Technology Model- and Object-based Technology 

Cost-driven Process Performance-driven Process 

Physical Products Smart Buildings and Products 

Stand-alone Applications Total Life Support 

ROADCON presents a series of high level roadmaps for transitioning from the current state to 

the vision for each element. Each roadmap recognizes four major innovation stages and 

associates with each a timeframe: 

• Emerging: Exploring RTD needs and opportunities for potential solutions (11-20 years) 

• Research: Prototyping is required to move forward (6-10 years) 

• Development: Clearly defined RTD to achieve exploitable results (3-5 years) 

• Take-up: Adopt, deploy and demonstrate mainly existing technologies (0-2 years) 

The Construction ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Roadmap (ROADCON: 

IST 2001-37278, WP5/ D52) declares, “...this needs to be done in a holistic manner without 
19 

gaps in the evolutionary process. New technologies should not be introduced to industry at a 

premature stage.” 

Figure 2-4 below incorporates the roadmap for moving construction from document-based to 

model- and object-based information and communications technology. 

2.4.4 Roadmaps from Multiple Organizations Compared 

Figure 2-4 compares the USPI-NL roadmap to those produced by organizations that have 

projected timeframes for achieving interoperability. 
20 

CFIHG Part 1: USPI-NL Roadmap

External

One to One E-Handover

Small Closed Communities

Intercoumminty Exchange

Maturing Intercommunity Exchange

Internal

External Process Integration

Internal Process Integration

Sub Process Optimization

Work Process Standardization

U.S. General Services Administration

GSA PBS OCA Established the National 3D-4D-BIM Program 1111

OCA issued an RFI to companies providing 3D-4D-BIM services 1111

GSA publishes 3D-4D-BIM Guide Volume I: Spatial Validation 1

A Spatial Program BIM becomes min. req. for all major new and modernization projects 1111

Anshen + Allen

Pilot Project 111

Internal BIM Production 11111

Initial BIM Collaboration 111111

Mainstream BIM Collaboration 1111111

Construction to Operations Building Information Exchange Project Plan

Intelligent Electronic Submittals 1111

Capture Spatial Requirements 1111

Capture Equipment Performance Specifications 1111

Capture Metrics for Equipment Performance 11111111

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

Initial BIM Capability 11111111

90% Internal BIM Adoption 11111111

BIM Contract Requirement 11111111

Automation of Life-Cycle Tasks 1111 1111

European Union RoadCon Road Map

Take-Up

Data Exchange Standards

Object-Based CAD Tools

Structured Documents - XML

Document Management & PDM

3D

File-Based Process/ Workflow Management

Develop

Translators

Enhanced Standard Scope

Obect Databases

Model & Document Linking

Model Driven User Interfaces

4D (=3D + time)

5D (=4D + cost)

Legal & Contractual Governance of Models

Research

Model Mapping

Integrated Model-Based Standard

Model Servers

Model-Based Applications & Interfaces

Intellectual Property Rights of Model Data

Emerging

Extensible & Adaptive Models

Model Checking

Model-Based Services

Model Driven Process

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 2010 2011 2019 2020

Figure 2-4: Building Industry Roadmaps 
21 

3. Key Concepts and Terms 

Case studies presented in this guide demonstrate that higher levels of productivity and quality 

can be achieved through more integrated project delivery supported by electronic information 

handovers. The Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) suggests in Optimizing the Construction 

Process: An Implementation Strategy that the necessary component to transform a collaborative 

project approach into integrated project delivery is technology. 

Currently, the management of electronic information exchanges is a technically difficult and 

time consuming activity. This presents an obstacle to widespread adoption of the target 

technologies, especially Building Information Modeling (BIM). What can be done to facilitate 

the general building industry’s ability to achieve user-friendly, reliable and low cost information 

handovers? 

3.1 Interoperability 

A layered data model to support capital facility life cycle information was shown in the Capital 

Facilities Information Handover Guide (CFIHG) Part 1 (see Figure 3-1). 

Figure 3-1: Layered Data Model 

Key to the ability to exchange intelligent building information across organizational and system 

boundaries is agreement on the types, hierarchy and content of the data objects that make up the 

building model. There must be broad agreement on the information required about a door, a 
22 

space, a window, a chair, a piece of mechanical equipment and so forth. This is a necessary step 

for the interoperability of applications using intelligent building models. It permits producers of 

building products and equipment to create and publish libraries of their components according to 

a standard framework. Objects from the reference library can then be combined to create any 

number of truly intelligent BIMs. Each BIM is an assembly of specific components with their 

properties (height, width, fire rating, and so forth) assigned. Next, software must provide the 

capability to extract from the BIM the information required for specific purposes, such as energy 

analysis, structural analysis, cost estimating, procurement, fabrication, erection and maintenance. 

These are called Model Views. This is a somewhat circular process, since the information 

requirements of the views are really what define the information that must be associated with 

each object type. The process through which model views can be proposed, agreed to by the full 

range of stakeholders, standardized and software implementations certified is very immature in 

the general buildings industry. This section discusses current approaches and initiatives to create 

this critical information infrastructure. 

Finally, there is the need to extract numerous, coordinated documents from the BIM. 

“Documents” in this sense include 2D drawings, 3D renderings, quantity takeoffs, formatted cost 

estimates, schedules and so forth. This step requires development of rules for extracting and 

formatting subsets of the information contained in the model. This is an area that is fairly well 

understood and currently supported by software. 

3.2 Information Forms and Formats 

Understanding the following terms is helpful in planning and executing information handovers. 

3.2.1 Unstructured Form 

Increasingly facility information is produced and managed electronically. Examples include 

memos, cost estimates, purchase orders, analyses, and drawings. However, much electronic 

information is still held in documents that do not have a formal structure. Most correspondence, 

including project reports and drawings, fall into this category. For these documents, the only way 

to interpret the contents or to check their quality is for someone to actually read them. 

Unstructured data of this type cannot be truly interoperable, although it might be compatible with 

multiple software products. Some human effort will be required to interpret the data for the 

receiving system. A good example is the work firms do to reach agreement on Computer-Aided 

Design (CAD) layering for a particular project. This creates the appearance of structure in the 

CAD files. However, the structure is not intrinsic: a user can place a furniture item on the wall 

layer. For this reason, quantity take-offs from unstructured CAD files have always been subject 

to error. 

3.2.2 Structured Form 

Some software, particularly BIM authoring tools, creates information in a structured form that is 

immediately machine-interpretable. This improves productivity and reduces errors. It permits the 

use of computer tools to assist in managing, using and checking the data. Structured data are 

needed if the goal is to eliminate the cost of manipulating and interpreting the data in the 

receiving system each time information is handed over to another application for analysis. 

Structured form is the key to highly optimized design, supply chain streamlining and the ability 
23 

to use information captured during design and construction in downstream operations and 

maintenance applications without additional cost. Section 1 of this guide cites Anshen+Allen, 

Architects’ use of Industry Foundation Classes (IFCs), a structured data form, to transfer 

building information to the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) for energy and 

daylighting analysis, resulting in much more rapid turnaround of analysis results. 

3.2.3 Proprietary Format 

This is any data format defined and owned by a specific software company. Most software 

outputs data in a proprietary format, sometimes referred to as the “native” format. Proprietary is 

the more significant term, however, because it means that the format is the property of a single 

software vendor. At any time, the vendor can modify the format. If this happens, archived data 

maintained in that format may no longer be usable in current versions of the application. Also, a 

vendor may cease doing business or discontinue the products that output the format. Either of 

these circumstances threatens to render the proprietary data unusable. 

Very often, the client organization uses a particular software application and requests 

information in that application’s proprietary file format. This approach permits reuse in the 

authoring software but may limit the ability to share the information with other organizations or 

additional applications, such as analysis, or to use the information when the current generation of 

software is replaced. 

Proprietary formats may have structured or unstructured form. BIM authoring products, for 

example, create structured data in proprietary formats. As this new generation of design software 

produces information-rich models, there is the potential for reuse of that information in an 

increasing number of parallel and downstream processes. Proprietary formats, under these 

circumstances, become problematic. 

However, among products from a single software vendor, users find that proprietary format 

exchanges can be quickest, easiest and most reliable. It would be appropriate to permit the 

iterative data exchanges that take place during the design or construction phase to use proprietary 

formats, particularly if those exchanges needed to be two-way. Ghafari, for example, has 

reported that some applications that support the CIMsteel Integration Standard, Release 2 

(CIS/2) standard structured format do not maintain each object’s globally unique ID. This is not 

a shortcoming of the CIS/2 standard but of vendor implementations of that standard. The result is 

that a structural member’s ID can be changed in a receiving application and sent back with the 

new ID to the originator. This creates problems in model management. Using the proprietary 

format under these circumstances will improve quality, reduce model management effort and 

speed the iterations. However, if the steel model will be maintained and updated throughout the 

life cycle of the facility, a standard format (CIS/2 or IFC) is preferable for the handover to 

operations. 

3.2.4 Standard Format 

There are two types of standard formats: 

• “Defacto standards” refer to formats that may have originated with a single vendor, but have 

been made publicly available and are supported by multiple vendors and products. A good 

example of a defacto standard format is DXF. Since the format specification is published, 
24 

anyone can write an application to access data stored in that format. The organization can be 

assured that their data will be retrievable. However, Autodesk decided not to extend the DXF 

format to include its complete product data structure. One can anticipate that there will be 

fewer and fewer commercially available programs that read and write DXF files over time 

and that the DXF format will not be extended to BIM objects. 

• “De jure standards” are those maintained by a standards development organization, such as 

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Alliance for 

Interoperability (IAI) or the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC). In addition to the 

advantages of data longevity described above, de jure standards are typically developed 

through a consensus process that considers the information requirements of many 

organizations. Thus, de jure standard formats may be more flexible and useful. Also, the 

consensus process ensures that there are multiple organizations that have an interest in the 

standard. Thus, a unilateral decision by one vendor will not halt support for or the extension 

of the standard. In addition, standards bodies typically have an organization that handles 

activities such as supporting software vendors attempting to implement the standard and 

developing test cases for verifying implementations. They may even create certification 

programs for software implementations. 

The downside to de jure standards is that the consensus process is slower. This has become a 

particular issue with BIM standards. 

Standard formats are preferred for any data that will be archived for an extended period. 

3.3 Using Standard Structured Formats 

Currently, there exist multiple standard structured formats to support electronic information 

exchanged in the general building industry. Two that have already been discussed in this guide 

are CIS/2 and the IAI IFCs. 

CIS/2 was developed using the ISO STEP modeling technology. Targeted at building structural 

steel, it supports the structural steel life cycle, from design and analysis, through detailing, 

fabrication and erection. It was developed over a 10-year period by Leeds University and the 

Steel Construction Institute (SCI) in the UK and partially funded by the European Union 

EUREKA Project. Version 1 was released in 1995, Version 2 (CIS/2) in 1999. The American 

Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) has endorsed and supported the CIS/2 standard since 

1999, advocating for its use in the structural steel supply chain. Technical assistance has been 

provided by the Georgia Tech Design Computing group. 

The IAI’s IFCs address a much broader range of potential information exchanges than CIS/2. 

The IAI is a global alliance of organizations in Architecture/ Engineering/ Construction (AEC) 

and other industries whose goal is to develop a universal standard for information sharing and 

interoperability of intelligent digital building models developed in object-based systems 

throughout all phases of the building life cycle. The IFCs are specifications that define a 

comprehensive object-based data model for the AEC industry. The IFC core concepts have been 

endorsed by the ISO as a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) under the ISO label “ISO/ PAS 

16739” (http://www.tc184-sc4.org/SC4_Open/Projects/maindisp.cfm). 
25 

The IFCs provide a rich and extensive language that allows multiple ways to define geometry 

and to name and measure properties. It is quite possible for two systems to have IFC import/ 

export capabilities but be unable to exchange information successfully due to different mappings 

of their native objects to the IFC classes. There are now a number of efforts underway to 

eliminate this problem. 

3.3.1 Defining Model Views 

What are necessary to move standard formats such as the IFCs into industry-wide use are agreedupon mappings of the information requirements of specific information exchanges to the entities 

and properties of the standard formats, as discussed at the beginning of this section. This effort 

requires a combination of domain knowledge (i.e., knowledge of design and construction 

processes and products) as well as deep understanding of the standard format data structures for 

conveying this information. Since it is extremely rare that a single individual has both the 

domain expertise and the data modeling knowledge, a great deal of work is underway to define 

methods of capturing domain information and documenting data structures in ways that allow the 

two knowledge groups to communicate effectively. 

An established technique is to define specific workflows and information use cases for model 

exchange. An example of a use case would be the handover of building information to the 

contractor for cost estimating. Each use case may require multiple information exchanges. For 

each exchange, it is necessary to detail the information to be exchanged and define the entities in 

the standard format that are required for the exchange. This creates a Model View. This proven 

approach derives from the “application protocol” concept that was first used by the Initial 

Graphic Exchange Specification (IGES) committee in the 1980’s and was a basis for the 

development of ISO 10303 (STEP) as well as for the development of the Information Delivery 

Manual (IDM) methodology discussed in Section 3.3.1.6 below. 

3.3.1.1 BLIS 

The Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software (BLIS) initiative was the first to apply a use case 

approach to defining Model Views of the IFCs. The goal was to encourage consistent IFC 

implementations by software vendors. Defining views of the IFC model, appropriate to specific 

uses, was a way to ensure that similar applications that implemented a part of the IFC model did 

so in a consistent manner. Software companies participating in the BLIS initiative defined a 

small set of use cases and committed to supporting them flawlessly. In order to achieve this, 

these use cases and associated object sets were defined in great detail. Beginning in 1999, BLIS 

companies defined IFC views and demonstrated software interoperability via IFCs for the 

following use cases: 

• Design to/ from Design (geometry view) 

• Client briefing/ space planning to Architectural design 

• Architectural design to/ from Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) design 

• Arch/ HVAC Design to Quantities take off/ cost estimating 

• Arch/ HVAC Design to Thermal load calculations/ HVAC system design 

• Arch/ HVAC Design to Construction management/ scheduling
26 

Thanks mainly to the BLIS effort, these are the most widely used and dependable information 

handovers using IFCs. The BLIS website can be viewed at http://www.blis-project.org. 

3.3.1.2 GSA 

In 2006, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Public Building Services (PBS) Office 

of the Chief Architect (OCA) released GSA BIM Guide For Spatial Program Validation, which 

documents in detail specific information handover requirements from Preliminary Concept 

Design and Final Concept Design. GSA targeted spatial program validation as a high-priority use 

case and thus was able to identify clearly the information required, and then define a subset of 

the IFC model to convey that information. In addition, GSA worked with all major BIM software 

vendors to assist them in supporting the IFC Model View that GSA created through this 

mapping. GSA’s BIM Guide Series also provides modeling guidance to end users, including 

product-specific instructions. More information can be viewed at http://www.gsa.gov/bim. 

3.3.1.3 NBIMS 

The U.S. National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Project Committee formed in 2005 under the 

National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Facility Information Council. Its mission, as 

identified in its charter, is to improve the performance of facilities over their full life cycle by 

fostering a common, standard and integrated life cycle information model for the industry, which 

will allow for the free flow of graphic and non-graphic information among all parties to the 

process of creating and sustaining the built environment. The NBIMS is based on the 

methodologies and object class libraries defined by the IAI and is being developed using the 

IFCs. The committee plans to collect and coordinate IFC use cases created to date and make 

them more readily accessible. The committee will also work to coordinate U.S. efforts with 

related activities taking place internationally. 

3.3.1.4 COBIE 

The Construction Operations Building Information Exchange (COBIE) project is a component of 

the NBIMS sponsored by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). It 

addresses the handover of information between the construction and operations phases of the 

facility life cycle. COBIE’s goal is to capture complete electronic construction product, 

equipment, system, and warranty information as the project progresses and automatically transfer 

this information to the facility’s work order management systems. COBIE is producing the data 

exchange format and specifications to support this. The first phase will rely on electronic 

submittals from construction contractors. These submittals will consist of documents in PDF 

format with document metadata as well as warranty, parts and equipment data entered into a 

database. Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) vendors will be required to 

support a standard import format, which is IFC-compliant, into their applications. There were 

commercial technology demonstrations for this first phase in 2006. Future phases will extend the 

data exchange format and specifications to equipment performance specifications and metrics for 

equipment performance. 

3.3.1.5 CIS/2 – IFC Harmonization 

Georgia Tech, supported by AISC, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) both undertook efforts to harmonize CIS/2 with the IFCs and create mappings between 

the two standard structured formats. NIST developed a CIS/2 to IFC translator that is being 

actively used in industry to export CIS/2 files from several steel analysis, design, and detailing 
27 

software packages and import them into architectural modeling systems for coordination and 

other tasks. Georgia Tech also produced software that translates CIS/2 to IFC and IFC to CIS/2. 

The harmonization effort identified deficiencies in the IFC model in the handling of structural 

steel. Currently, NIST is working with the IAI Modeling Support Group to implement new 

constructs in the IFC model to handle structural steel and improve the mapping between CIS/2 

and IFC. In addition, NIST and Georgia Tech are working together to define use cases for the 

structural steel supply chain. The use cases will look at information exchanges between architect, 

engineer, designer, detailer, fabricator, erector, mill, and so forth. The end result should be an 

Information Delivery Manual which will drill down to the IFC entities necessary for a particular 

information exchange. 

3.3.1.6 Information Delivery Manuals 

The Norwegian buildingSMART initiative and the NBIMS committee have built upon the use 

case approach with the Information Delivery Manual (IDM) methodology. This approach allows 

for a set of ‘functional parts’ to be defined that can be re-used to meet different sets of exchange 

requirements. It also accommodates information packages that have multiple sources over time. 

For example, the designer specifies the performance requirements of building products and 

systems, while the actual products, their characteristics and their installation and operation are 

defined in submittals during the construction phase. Both sets of information are required for 

operations and maintenance. The COBIE initiative has adopted the IDM approach and simplifies 

the development of a specification for the collection of incremental, process-based information 

packages. This allows the data subsets to be captured at the source throughout the design/ 

construction process, rather than recreated at project closeout. 

The NBIMS committee is actively gathering effective techniques and requirements, including 

many of those documented here, to reformulate them as IDMs. The goal is to create an ever 

growing, Internet-accessible and searchable library of use cases and IDMs. In addition, the 

NBIMS Project Committee is developing end-user templates for defining use cases and their 

information requirements. 

3.3.1.6.1 Contents of a buildingSMART IDM 

A buildingSMART IDM defines the key information handover points, identifies the data 

required and specifies how an application should exchange or share data in the handover 

transaction. In an IDM, each process is described individually and each description consists of 

three parts: process map, exchange requirement and functional part. The Norwegian 

buildingSMART effort has documented this methodology in detail 

(http://www.iai.no/idm/index.html), including the following definitions: 

• Process Map: The Process Map (PM) is an overview of the process, describing its 

objective and the phases in a project when the business process is expected to be relevant. 

It also identifies all the sub-processes. 

• Exchange Requirement: Each requirement for information exchange is described 

individually. An Exchange Requirement (ER) is a non-technical description of the 

information needed by a business process to be executed, as well as the information 

produced by that business process. An ER attempts to break down information 
28 

requirements into concepts which can be easily understood. ERs can be referenced by one 

or more PMs. 

• Functional Part: A Functional Part (FP) describes an information handover in sufficient 

technical detail for software implementation. Whereas an exchange requirement describes 

information in non-technical terms, functional parts describe the use of every entity, every 

attribute, every property set and every property. A functional part identifies the specific 

IFC capabilities supporting the information handover and prescribes the values of attributes 

where appropriate. Functional parts can also be broken down into other functional parts. 

Functional parts are therefore reusable, defining commonly occurring sets of data that may 

be used by any number of processes and ERs. 

3.3.1.6.2 IDM Toolset and Process 

The IDM toolset and process is intended to be used by industry professionals to describe a 

business process that requires an information exchange between two project stakeholders, such 

as the architect and the structural engineer. The end result is a clear definition of the information 

to be exchanged, the timeframe in the project life cycle, and ideally, the application types to be 

used by the sender and the receiver. 

3.3.1.7 IFC Model View Definition Toolset and Process 

The IFC Model View Definition (MVD) toolset and process take one or more exchange 

requirements from IDMs and merge them to define a View of the entire IFC model schema to be 

implemented by the sending and receiving application types, such as architectural design 

application and structural design application. This merging of many IDM exchange requirements 

by application type is a pragmatic way to reduce the number of Views of the IFC model schema 

that must be supported by a given application. MVDs also define exactly which IFC objects, 

relationships and data formats will be used to exchange the information. This specificity ensures 

absolute consistency in implementations by different vendors. Conformance can be tested and 

verified by third parties, a necessary set for ensuring interoperability. 

3.3.2 Other Standard Structured Formats 

In addition to CIS/2 and IFC formats, there are a number of Extensible Markup Language 

(XML) schemas that have been defined to support standard information exchanges in the general 

buildings industry. 

3.3.2.1 AEX 

The FIATECH-sponsored Automating Equipment Information Exchange (AEX) Project 

developed XML schemas for automating the information exchange for the design, selection and 

procurement of engineered equipment, e.g., pumps, compressors and heat exchangers and also 

produced guidance - the XML Schema Development Guidelines - on developing such schemas. 

These guidelines summarize the background, rationale and guiding principles that the FIATECH 

program is using to produce XML domain schemas for automating information exchanges in the 

capital facilities industries and over the life cycle of equipment used in capital facilities. The 

AEX Project works with industry organizations in the development, validation, interoperability 

demonstration and standardization of these XML schemas. Industry associations are now 

adopting these XML schemas as industry standards. The Hydraulic Institute (HI) and the 

American Petroleum Institute (API) are two recent examples of including AEX into their 

equipment standards. 
29 

3.3.2.2 AGCxml 

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and NIBS are sponsoring development 

of AGCxml XML schemas for exchanging construction project information between software 

applications. AGCxml is targeted specifically for project information such as owner/contractor 

agreements, change orders, and requests for information. The goal is to create a unified 

document exchange standard to allow construction business data interoperability between 

software applications such as those for generating construction contracts, project management 

and accounting. 

3.3.2.3 gbXML 

The Green Building XML schema (gbXML) was developed by Green Building Studio, Inc. to 

facilitate the transfer of building information stored in CAD building information models, 

enabling interoperability between building design models and a wide variety of energy analysis 

tools. gbXML is an XML schema that allows for a detailed description of a single building or a 

set of buildings for the purposes of energy and resource analysis. These analyses can be used for 

determining a building’s cost of operation, pollution produced, energy requirements, and health 

issues. It allows for data interoperability between 3D CAD applications and building analysis 

programs such as DOE-2.2. 

3.3.2.4 ifcXML 

ifcXML is an XML representation of the IFC EXPRESS model developed by the IAI. It adheres 

to the IFC content. 

3.3.2.5 OSCRE 

The Open Software Consortium for Real Estate (OSCRE) pursues the use case approach in 

defining XML schemas for information handovers. OSCRE’s goal is to develop a set of 

definitions and protocols to facilitate a seamless automated transfer of data between disparate 

types of software packages that are used regularly by real estate owners, managers, service 

providers and their advisors. The OSCRE standard seeks to establish the methodologies for 

content payload and transport mechanisms to enable the technology systems of multiple trading 

partners to exchange information regardless of operating system or software application. OSCRE 

has a very well-defined methodology for the definition, development and harmonization of these 

XML schemas. 

3.3.2.6 OGC 

The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is a non-profit, international, voluntary consensus 

standards organization that is leading the development of standards for geospatial and location 

based services. While not directly engaged in defining views of building information, OGC 

members have understood that buildings exist in a geospatial context and that building 

information must be accessible through geospatial and location based services. The OGC has 

entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with NIBS and the IAI to foster synergy and 

harmonization among the various organizations. A development in Germany known as CityGML 

was adopted as an OGC White Paper in 2006 and is now being considered for formal OGC 

standardization. CityGML is an open data model and XML-based format for storing and 

exchanging virtual 3D city models. Its developers have collaborated with other information 

modeling activities including the IAI IFC and this collaboration will continue in the framework 

of the OGC-IAI MOU. 
30 

3.3.3 Additional Information Sources 

There are many organizations working on the development of data exchange standards for the 

capital facility industry. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) Technology in Architectural 

Practice (TAP) Knowledge Community maintains a website (http://www.buildingconnections.info) that lists many of these organizations and the areas in which they are working. 

It also provides links and contact information for these groups. 

FIATECH also provides a Data Standards Clearinghouse as part of its website: 

http://www.fiatech.org/projects/idim/dscdata.htm. This Data Standards Clearinghouse provides 

summary information about the listed standards as well as links to the underlying sponsor 

organizations and standards efforts. 

3.4 Classification, Metadata and Dictionaries 

Common classification systems, metadata and terminology are also necessary for 

interoperability. 

3.4.1 Classification 

Information is organized and classified differently in each life cycle stage by different 

participants and by the various industry sectors. In order for information handed over to be 

useful, end users must be able to organize, extract and present it flexibly. A good classification 

framework is critical to managing and providing access to the information. 

ISO 12006-2 provides a framework for the classification of information about construction 

works. Implementations of 12006-2 include Uniclass in the U.K. and OmniClassTM in the U.S. 

OmniClass, developed by the IAI/ Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Overall 

Construction Classification System (OCCS) Committee, has been adopted for the NBIMS. 

3.4.2 Metadata 

Metadata are defined as data about other data. Metadata are used to organize the information and 

to search for particular items. A comprehensive metadata approach is necessary for long-term 

data access and preservation through the facility life cycle phases. There are three basic types of 

metadata, described as follows. 

3.4.2.1 Descriptive Metadata 

Descriptive metadata identify and describe the information with fields such as phase, discipline, 

material and so forth. ISO 12006-2 provides a framework for the classification of information 

about construction works and for this type of metadata. 

3.4.2.2 Administrative Metadata 

Administrative metadata are used to manage the information and include such fields as 

intellectual property status, file format, file size, creating system, archiving date, archiving 

expiration date and archiving refresh interval. This type of metadata is critical to implementation 

of a long-term facility life cycle information strategy. The Open Archival Information System 

(OAIS) Reference Model, ISO 14721:2003, defines an archival system dedicated to preserving 

and maintaining access to digital information over a long term. OAIS separates the details of 

format and preservation metadata from the other administrative metadata and places them in a 

separate Format Registry, which is designed to aid in data preservation and to monitor formats. 
31 

The Format Registry identifies all file formats stored in the archive and their properties, and 

automates the assignation of preservation strategies. 

3.4.2.3 Structural Metadata 

Structural metadata describe the internal structure of the information and relationships between 

its components. They can be used to track the relationship between a single drawing and the set 

to which it belongs, multiple revisions of the same document and the relationships among files in 

a compound electronic document (e.g., reference files making up a CAD drawing, or a 

spreadsheet linked to a document). They can also be used to describe the documents that derive 

from a particular information package in structured form. 

3.4.2.4 Standards for Metadata 

ISO 12006-2 provides a framework for descriptive metadata about construction works, as 

discussed above. For document metadata, there is ISO 82045-5:2005 Document Management – 

Part 5: Application of Metadata for the Construction and Facility Management Sector. It 

specifies elements and methods for sharing and exchanging metadata for documents in the 

architecture, engineering, construction and facility management domains. It is designed for use 

with both electronic and paper-based document management systems and includes all three types 

of metadata described above. 

3.4.3 Dictionaries 

There is a need for common terminology for both metadata and object properties. There have 

been a number of national efforts to develop dictionaries of common building terms and their 

definitions. The International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD), based on ISO 12006-3, is the 

leading multi-national effort. At a 2006 IAI meeting, the CSI and their Canadian counterparts 

agreed to join with the IFD partners to develop a common dictionary of standard terminology for 

the capital facilities industry. 
32 

4. Case Studies of Information Handover 

It is helpful to learn from the experience of project teams that have undertaken information 

handovers the benefits actually achieved, the issues encountered and their advice for improving 

the process. The section below documents actual project experience. Please note that the 

diagrams illustrate the primary direction of workflow. There are often many iteration loops. 

4.1 Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium Hall 600 

Product Model 4D CAD (PM4D) Final Report (CIFE Technical Report Number 143), published 

in 2002 by Martin Fischer and Calvin Kam, presents the findings from the design and 

construction of the Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium Hall 600 (HUT-600) in 

Finland. This study was one of the first to document the process and quantify the effectiveness of 

intelligent modeling combined with data sharing across a broad range of applications (i.e., 

information handovers). 

Running simultaneously with the design and construction of the HUT-600 project, an 

international research team, funded by the Finnish National Technology Agency (TEKES) 

applied the product modeling approach, tested the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC 1.5.1) 

interoperability standards, and used an expanded set of design, visualization, simulation, and 

analysis tools on the 17-month, US $5-million capital project. The ultimate goal of this effort 

was to make a lasting and positive effect on the facility over its total life span. Thus, the effort 

represents an owner-driven strategy to optimize facility life cycle value and operational costs. 

The team actively engaged in the PM4D effort included the property owner, Senate Properties, 

design consultants A-Konsultit Oy (architecture), Magnus Malberg Consulting Engineers Ltd. 

(structural) and Insinooritoimisto Olof Granlund Oy (building systems). The construction 

manager/ general contractor, YIT Corporation, was also involved beginning with concept 

development. Researchers were the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford 

University. Data from product manufacturers was also incorporated in information handovers. 

Electronic copies of the study can be obtained at http://cife.stanford.edu/Publications/index.html.

4.1.1 Benefits Realized 

The three areas of technology explored were: 

• Intelligent, object-oriented modeling (structured data) 

• Use of IFCs (standard format) for data exchanges, and 

• Use of an expanded number of computer simulations and analyses, supported by the 

availability of a structured and comprehensive electronic building description. 

Benefits realized on HUT-600 included improved design quality, life cycle facility performance, 

near and long-term costs, budget control, and the design and construction process. The project 

was able to shorten design cycle times and minimize data re-entry. The use of structured 

(machine-interpretable) information exchanges was responsible for both the reduction in data reentry and the ability to run many more analyses than is typically possible. In spite of the schedule 
33 

constraints of a fast-track approach, the project team was able to generate three design and two 

life cycle alternatives. The time savings were quantified as approximately 50 percent in design 

documentation. 

4.1.2 Who Benefited 

The PM4D Approach assisted the building owner in aligning the building design with the 

strategic plan and long-term facility considerations. Pertinent decision factors and project 

alternatives were available early during the schematic design phase, when making a decision had 

a relatively high impact and low cost. Consultants were able to optimize the design, thus 

providing enhanced service. The construction manager/ general contractor was able to produce 

an accurate cost estimate and use 4D techniques to plan construction sequences. 

4.1.3 Information Packages Exchanged 

The following information packages were exchanged via IFC 1.5.1 format: 

• Building geometry, material types to COVE software for cost estimating 

• Building geometry, Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) system geometry 

to Common Point for 4D animation 

• Building geometry, material types, construction assemblies, HVAC system geometry to 

ArchiCAD 

• Wall types, surface areas to BSLCA software for life cycle environmental impact 

analysis 

• Building geometry, space IDs to RIUSKA software for energy analysis, and 

• Design temperature, air flow rate to MagiCAD for HVAC system sizing. 

The following diagram shows the information packages in all formats exchanged during the 

project. 
34 

Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium Hall 600 
35 

4.1.4 Issues Identified 

From the technical perspective, the PM4D researchers identified a number of issues: 

• Large file sizes 

• Lack of model revision management tools 

• Need for interventions and mappings to support data exchanges 

• Bugs, instability and lack of IFC write capabilities in authoring software, and 

• Need to create new definitions of architectural elements, cost items and construction 

resources. 

4.1.5 Recommendations for Future Efforts 

They also made a number of recommendations for future projects: 

• Develop multiple models 

o Core model 

o Discipline-specific models 

• Use partial data exchanges 

• Develop and adopt interoperability standards to reduce the requirement for mappings and 

intervention in data exchanges 

• Improve scalability and extensibility by referencing external data, and 

• The industry needs to develop better model management tools – most standard extranet 

products provide file management but models must be managed at the component level. 

4.2 General Motors Virtual Factory Initiative 

The General Motors (GM) Worldwide Facilities Group’s Virtual Factory Initiative is an example 

of an owner-initiated strategy to improve project delivery. With capital construction on the 

critical path to product delivery, GM was determined to apply lessons learned in manufacturing – 

particularly Lean techniques - to its capital facilities projects. 

Lean Construction defines seven forms of waste: 

1. Correction: Rework on some tasks because of errors in the design process discovered 

after work was started 

2. Overproduction: Performing work ahead of schedule, causing interferences with other 

planned work or additional material ordered due to inability of suppliers to provide 

quality 

3. Motion: Construction teams returning back to “office” to pick up plans, tools or materials 

not available at the site 

4. Material Movement: Moving materials from one staging to another, handing off work 

between crews 

5. Waiting: People waiting for equipment, plans or instructions on how to proceed, or 

waiting for material because of ineffective supply chains 

6. Inventory: Material staged on site too far in advance of when needed, and 

7. Processing: Redundant or unnecessary reporting, expediting material orders, or excessive 

coordination between suppliers. 
36 

GM decided to pursue Lean Construction through a 3D/4D technology-enabled design/build 

project delivery process. Between 2004 and 2006, GM completed four automotive plants, 

extending the use of these technologies with each. This decision was more time-driven than costdriven. 

Key team members actively engaged in the Virtual Factory Initiative included GM Worldwide 

Facilities Group (owner), Barton Malow Design (architecture), Ghafari Associates (AE plus 

3D/Lean integrator), Ideal Contracting (GC) and multiple subcontractors: John E. Green (piping 

and fire protection), Douglas Steel (steel fabricators), Superior Electric (electrical) and Dee 

Cramer (HVAC). Team members were pre-qualified based on experience with 3D delivery. 

Throughout all projects, Ghafari filled the role of model manager. 

The GM approach is to develop a 100 percent complete 3D model incorporating all architectural, 

structural, mechanical and electrical elements, including shop drawing-level details provided by 

the subcontractors and fabricators. Using NavisWorks Clash Detector, the team identifies and 

resolves all interferences before the start of construction. Then the construction team builds to 

the model, without deviations. 

4.2.1 Benefits Realized 

GM has achieved excellent results. The Virtual Factory approach has resulted in a higher degree 

of off-site fabrication and just-in-time delivery. By the second project, design/ construction time 

was reduced by 24 weeks (28 percent). This is 60 percent faster than a traditional design-bidbuild approach. Also by the second project, the design/build team resolved every interference in 

the computer model before starting construction. Change orders historically were 8 to 10 percent 

of project cost. Based on these four projects, change orders due to building component 

interferences and rework have been reduced to less than 0.5 percent. Unanticipated benefits have 

included six-figure reductions in waste removal charges and improved site safety. 

4.2.2 Who Benefited 

GM believes strongly that all project participants benefit from the Virtual Factory approach. AE 

firms and contractors who master Lean and 3D gain competitive advantage in pursuing work as 

well as lower structural costs. GM benefits from: 

• Lower cost 

• Higher quality 

• Faster delivery, and 

• Improved safety 

4.2.3 Information Packages Exchanged 

In the initial two projects, the focus was on creating and interference checking the 3D models. 

The information handed over was therefore 3D geometry in proprietary Computer-Aided Design 

(CAD) formats. Each company created the information relevant to its project role. Model 

ownership transitioned from engineers to subcontractors at what would normally be considered 

detailed design. The subcontractors created the installation-level 3D models, accurate to 1⁄4 inch 

tolerances. Ghafari augmented some subcontractors’ capabilities in this regard. An additional 

handover was from detailed design to fabrication for steel and HVAC components. 
37 

In the third project, the complete steel supply chain was integrated – design, analysis, detailing, 

fabrication, erection. Steel shop drawing review was replaced by a 3D review process. The 

CIMsteel Integration Standard, Release 2 (CIS/2) was employed for some steel data exchanges: 

• Data exchanges from analysis to modeling or detailing systems used direct application-toapplication interfaces 

• Data exchanges from detailing to modeling systems used CIS/2 translators to check 

geometry and maintain some intelligence 

• For review of shop drawings the team used the native detailing system authoring 

functionality to review/approve the detailed models. 

The fourth project introduced quantity take-offs for cost estimating and the handoff of 3D 

building components to a 4D application (NavisWorks Timeliner) for animating construction 

sequences. 

Figure 4-1: The model on the left is the preliminary design model. 

The model on the right is the model produced by the steel fabricator. 

The following diagram shows the information packages in all formats exchanged during the 

project. 
38 

Who

Launch Virtual

Factory Initiative

GM

Creation Activity Information Package Consumption Activity Information Package Consumption Activity Information Package C

A/E

GC

Subcontractors/

Fabricators

Acti

Information created Activity(s) that uses the information Information created Activity(s) that uses the information Describe the information the package contains During what project activity is the information created Which project role creates the information

Develop

Construction

Schedule

Preliminary Design

Preliminary Design

and Preliminary 3D

Model

Detailed Design

Detailed 3D

Models; Shop

Drawings (Initial

Projects Only)

Construction

Tasks,

Sequencing,

Critical Path

Model Updated

with FabricationLevel Detail;

Reviewed and

Approved in 3D

Virtual

Environment

(NavisWorks):

Interference

Checking, 4D

Construction

Planning

M

Precise 3D

Geometry for All

Building

Systems

Detailed 3D

Models

Model manager’s

Augmentation of

Some

Subcontractor’s

Capabilities in 3D

Modeling

General Motors: Virtual Factory Initiative 
39 

4.2.4 Issues Identified 

Due to the presence of a supportive owner and a team pre-qualified on the basis of their 3D 

capabilities, the Virtual Factory Initiative has progressed smoothly. The fact that the multiple 

projects were undertaken in rapid succession allowed a building of expertise and a continuous 

improvement. Nevertheless, some issues were identified: 

• Initial reluctance to “trust” the 3D model 

• Necessity to modify the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) quality 

procedures to maximize benefits of 3D delivery, and 

• Poor software management of unique object IDs: although the CIS/2 standard provides for 

unique and permanent IDs, the available CIS/2 software applications do not necessarily 

support or maintain that ID. Some analyses redefine the model as completely new 

elements, severing the link to the original model components from the analysis results. 

4.2.5 Recommendations for Future Efforts 

Model management was the area identified for future technical development. A continuity of 

information is required. Based on experience with CIS/2 implementations that did not support 

the maintenance of Globally Unique Identifiers (GUID), it is recommended that IFC software 

certification require the maintenance of the unique object IDs. There is also the question of 

versioning model components: if the component is modified, the ID should either be versioned 

or, if the change is major, somehow related to the precedent component. 

4.3 The Adaptive Re-Use of Soldier Field 

The Chicago Bears wanted a major reconstruction of the Soldier Field stadium without playing 

away from home for more than one season. This required construction of the US $600 million 

project to be completed in twenty months, 17 percent faster than industry best performance. 

Nevertheless, the partly publicly-funded project was initiated with a traditional design-bid-build 

delivery approach. 

Multiple owner organizations were involved. The Chicago Bears were the developers and the 

Chicago Park District was owner. The Illinois Sports Facilities Authority provided 2/3 of the 

funding. Hoffman Management Partners was the developer’s representative, holding all design 

and construction contracts. 

Thornton-Tomasetti, the structural engineers, suggested that the steel be modeled in 3D and that 

the 3D model be used for bidding, fabrication and erection. This would streamline information 

flow from design through analysis, detailing, fabrication and erection to eliminate lag time and 

redundancies. The motivation for using these electronic information handovers was that the 

stadium simply could not be finished on schedule using the traditional process. 

This was, therefore, a supply chain strategy initiated by the structural engineers. 

The project team included consultants Wood-Zapata Architects and Lohan Caprile Goettsch. 

(architecture),Thornton Tomasetti (structural engineering) and Ellerbe Becket (MEP). The 

Construction Manager (CM) was Turner Barton Mallow Kenny Joint Venture (TBMK) and 
40 

subcontractors included Hirschfeld Steel, Danny’s Erectors, Area Erectors, JW Peters, Concrete 

Structures, and Permasteelisa/Gartner. 

Only the steel supply chain and the curtainwall subcontractor used 3D modeling techniques. 

4.3.1 Benefits Realized 

This was a very focused use of electronic information handovers in structured form to shorten 

the construction schedule and that goal was achieved. The exchange of electronic data was 

primarily responsible for shortening the construction schedule by four months and meeting the 

Chicago Bears’ occupancy deadline. Interference checking between steel structure and the 

precast seating risers permitted modifications to those risers. 

4.3.2 Information Packages Exchanged 

The project was a mix of 2D and 3D methods, with traditional design phasing. Through 

Schematic Design, all techniques were 2D. In Design Development, Thornton Tomasetti 

produced the first 3D Xsteel model. In addition, the following information was exchanged: 

• The architects received and coordinated all consultants’ 2D AutoCAD files 

• Thornton-Tomasetti produced quantity takeoffs from Xsteel model for pricing by CM 

• Thornton-Tomasetti exported 3D images in JPG format from Xsteel to architects to 

clarify certain conditions 

• Xsteel model was issued in native format as a construction document to the steel 

fabricator and the curtainwall subcontractor, and 

• Steel shop drawings were submitted as 3D models with erection plans. 

The following diagram shows the information packages in all formats exchanged during the 

project. 
41 

The Adaptive Re-Use of Soldier Field 
42 

4.3.3 Issues Identified 

The decision to use 3D modeling and electronic information handovers for steel was made once 

the project was already underway. Thus, project planning had not anticipated this approach. This 

led to a number of issues: 

• Most team members were skeptical of the 3D model. This skepticism extended to refusal 

to fund the performance of interference checks between steel structure and precast seat 

risers for the entire stadium 

• Architects and MEP engineers did not change their methods to facilitate the 3D process. 

Biweekly exporting of 2D AutoCAD drawings from 3D steel models was cumbersome, 

time-consuming and redundant 

• Similarly, the owner required the delivery of both traditional steel shop drawings and the 

3D Xsteel models, also requiring redundant information and effort, and 

• The design-bid-build delivery approach prevented working with fabricators and 

subcontractors during design. 

4.3.4 Recommendations for Future Efforts 

Despite the challenges encountered, this supply chain information strategy was successful in 

meeting the owner’s requirement for a dramatically compressed construction schedule. Thornton 

Tomasetti offered some comments and suggestions to build upon this success: 

• The process of modeling a structure in 3D saves a large amount of time 

• The 3D model has to be 100 percent accurate 

• Choosing the subcontractors early and allowing them to have design input would save 

time and redundant effort to match specifications 

• The major portion of the design/coordination is typically done too late in the project 

schedule 

• The practice of issuing 2D drawings from a 3D model should be discontinued 

• Project roles must change with a 3D approach, and 

• There should be incentives for teamwork. The best value to the owner comes from the 

most efficient team: all parties involved in the design/ construction process working 

towards the overall success of the project and not solely for their own interests. 

4.4 Harborview Medical Center Expansion 

The Harborview Medical Center Expansion consists of an Inpatient Expansion Building and a 

clinic/ laboratory with five parking levels. The project delivery approach was a negotiated bid 

with the contractor on board from the beginning of the project. 

On this project, NBBJ, the architects, used intelligent building modeling techniques. NBBJ’s 

Design Technology Lead (DTL) was responsible for establishing the work processes and 

standards, and providing BIM training. NBBJ handed over the model data to Turner 

Construction at the bid phase. Turner took NBBJ’s Bentley TriForma BIM files, and although 

they imported them into NavisWorks, Turner remodeled the building to better suit their 

construction sequences and needs. 
43 

Turner Construction Company embraced the use of 3D models for identifying conflicts and 

understanding construction sequences, aggressively using dual overhead illuminated wall 

projection screens to coordinate the construction work with the client, subcontractors, 

consultants and the architect. During construction, NBBJ updated the model to reflect any 

changes resulting from RFIs or Change Orders. 

Additional integration was achieved at the project controls level with NBBJ’s interfacing their 

internal construction administration system, CATools, with the owner-mandated Prolog system. 

This project is a good example of an architect- and contractor-led information strategy of 

enhancing their own project delivery performance. 

The client in the Harborview Medical Center Expansion is the University of Washington. The 

owner is King County of Washington state. The owner’s rep is the University of Washington’s 

Capital Projects Office (CPO). The lead design consultant is NBBJ, Seattle (architecture), with 

MKA (structural and civil) and Sparling (electrical). Turner Construction Company is the 

general contractor. 

4.4.1 Benefits Realized 

The Harborview Medical Expansion project is still in construction at this time, so it is not 

possible to quantify owner benefits in terms of schedule or cost savings. Turner Construction 

quickly realized coordination benefits and time savings from the 3D process. NBBJ and Turner 

intend to use this approach on future joint projects. 

This was an early Building Information Modeling (BIM) effort for NBBJ. It provided the 

opportunity to establish and test the firm’s BIM standards. Also, technical details modeled for 

this project have already been applied to other healthcare projects. 

4.4.2 Information Packages Exchanged 

Like the Soldier Field Renovation, this project used a mixture of 2D and 3D data exchanges: 

• Design consultants exchanged primarily 2D data in DGN and DWG format, and 

• Bentley TriForma BIM files produced by the architects to NavisWorks for use by the 

contractor 

The following diagram shows the information packages in all formats exchanged during the 

project thus far. 
44 

Who

Design

Engineering

Consultants

2D

Drawings,

Creation Activity Information Package Consumption Activity Information Package Consumption Activity Information Package Consumption Activity

Architect

Client

GC

Activity(s) that uses the

information Information created Activity(s) that uses the information Information created Activity(s) that uses the information Describe the information the package contains During what project activity is the information created Which project role creates the information

Information

Package

Information created

Consumption

Activity

Activity(s) that uses the

information

Create BIM

Model in

TriForma

BIM

Model

Import Models

and

Construction

Schedule into

NavisWorks

Information

Package

C

Act

Information created

Building

Systems

Coordination

Analyses

2D

Drawings,

Model

Updates

2D Drawing

Updates

BIM

Components

for Future

Use

Construction

Schedule:

Tasks,

Durations,

Dependencies

Request 2D

AutoCAD

Data

Export 2D

Drawings in

AutoCAD

Format

Develop

Construction

Schedule

Perform

Interference

Checks

Evaluate

Construction

Sequences

Model Some

Components

Generate

Construction

Model

Setup Project

Controls in

Prolog &CATools

Coordinated

Construction

Model and

Schedule

Interface

NBBJ’s

CATools with

Prolog

RFIs,

Submittals,

Change Order

Requests

Integrated 3D/

4D Model

Conduct

Virtual

Problem

Solving

Sessions with

Consultants

and Subs

Develop Cost

Estimate

Harborview Medical Center Expansion 
45 

4.4.3 Issues Identified 

This was an early BIM effort for NBBJ and one in which the structural and MEP consultants 

would not adopt 3D techniques. This created some challenges: 

• Project started using early version of TriForma and there were some software problems 

• Senior staff members required TriForma training; some would not change from 2D 

techniques 

• MEP consultant promised 3D capability but did not deliver, and 

• There was an unanticipated request from the client and consultants to translate data to 

AutoCAD format. 

4.4.4 Recommendations for Future Efforts 

This 31⁄2-year design project suffered from the immaturity of BIM software and limited industry 

understanding of how BIM should be used. However, it benefited from a sufficient duration to 

climb the learning curve and maximize the software potential for 3D design and construction 

planning integrated with scheduling and cost estimation. Recommendations from NBBJ to other 

teams include: 

• Determine the model integrator at project outset 

• Allow the model integrator to visit and train other team members 

• Have the BIM conversations as early as possible to work together and avoid re-modeling 

and 

• Expect stumbling blocks and potentially higher production costs on the first project. 

4.5 Wellcome Trust, UK 

The Wellcome Trust facility is a world-class genome research facility located in Cambridge, UK. 

It includes a laboratory, laboratory support space and a data center. Its total size is approximately 

20,350 square meters. This project was designed and constructed under a very non-standard and 

forward-thinking contractual and risk sharing arrangement that created an environment of 

collaboration, cooperation and trust. Subcontractors participated in finalizing the technical design 

of the project, resulting in better coordination and quality. 

The client was the Wellcome Trust and the owner was Wellcome Trust Construction Ltd. NAI 

Fuller Peiser was the owner’s representative. The lead design firm was NBBJ, London. The CM 

was Mace, which issued trade contract packages to subcontractors selected jointly with the 

client. The procurement process was non-confrontational and the owner self-insured the 

construction phase. All trade contractors executed contracts directly with the owner. The 

commissioning consultant was Commissioning Management Ltd. (CML). 

There were a number of special considerations in the design of and information handovers for 

the project. The building was designed to achieve an “Excellent” rating for a science facility 

according to the BREEAM standards (UK standard similar to U.S. LEED). The commissioning 

consultant required electronic handovers for the client’s operations and maintenance activities. 

Comprehensive commissioning practices ensured cost savings and better coordination. In 

addition, the client requested electronic handovers for the Building Management System (BMS). 
46 

The information strategy for this project was owner-driven, with dual emphases on project 

delivery and optimizing life cycle operations. 

4.5.1 Benefits Realized 

The project delivery achieved goals in all dimensions: budget adherence, schedule adherence and 

quality of the facility. The value of information handovers to operations and maintenance and to 

the BMS has not yet been quantified. Although the owner benefited most, all parties performed 

profitably and valued the opportunity to work in a collaborative, non-confrontational 

environment. NBBJ received ISO 9001 Quality Management System certification based on the 

standards and procedures they developed for this project. 

4.5.2 Information Packages Exchanged 

During the project process, files were shared collaboratively using the BWI Electronic 

Documentation Systems. Information creation software included TriForma, AutoCAD and XSteel. NBBJ shared TriForma model data with all parties: consultants, client, construction 

manager, trade contractors and the metal and curtainwall fabricators. 

Additional information handovers were to: 

• Operations and maintenance, and 

• Building management system 

The following diagram shows the information packages in all formats exchanged during the 

project. 
47 

Who Creation Activity Information Package Consumption Activity Information Package Consumption Activity Information Package Consumption Activity

Structural

Engineer

Lead Design Firm

Trade Contractors/

Fabricators

Activity(s) that uses the

information Information created Activity(s) that uses the information Information created Activity(s) that uses the information Describe the information the package contains During what project activity is the information created Which project role creates the information

Information

Package

Information created

Consumption

Activity

Activity(s) that uses the

information

Collaborate with

Designers on

Detailed Building

Systems Design

Design in

TriForma

CM

Client

BREEAM

Energy

Calculations

BIM Model of

Structure

Design

in

TriForma

BIM Model:

Architecture

and Building

Systems 3D Blocking and Stacking

Steel

Package for

Detailing

Structural

Analysis

Results

Detail Steel in

XSteel

Detail Curtainwall

in TriForma and

CNC software

Curtainwall

Detailing

Detailed

Building

System

Design

Steel

Detailing

Approve

Curtainwall

Detailing

Approve

Steel

Detailing

Share Models

via BWI

Electronic

Documentation

System for

Coordinationand Analysis

Update Model

Wellcome Trust, UK 
48 

4.5.3 Issues Identified 

This was NBBJ London’s first major project. The office needed to develop system standards and 

templates that conformed to jurisdictional standards and regulations. Creating these system 

standards and templates was an expense, but they were instrumental in NBBJ’s achieving ISO 

9001 Quality Management System certification. 

4.5.4 Recommendations for Future Efforts 

NBBJ believes that this project serves as a positive model in several areas: 

• Commercial terms 

o Create trusted partnerships and create alliance contracts with those trusted partners 

o Build language into the contract that as many trades as possible will be involved as 

soon as possible 

o Share the risks 

• Communication 

o Visioning workshops with 40 users to understand, synthesize and prioritize goals, 

aspirations and constraints 

o Intensive User Representative Meetings focused on clarity of process and deliverables 

o Periodic reviews during production phase to keep user groups informed of project 

status developments and changes 

• Project “Change Control Procedures” and “Zero Defects Program” involved weekly 

meetings with the client, facility manager, contractor and engineers for 6 months after 

project closeout to quickly identify, evaluate and resolve any operational issues. 

4.6 Buckley Army Aviation Support Facility 

The Buckley Army Aviation Support Facility was a mixed use project: 

o 6040 square meters of helicopter maintenance hanger 

o 2320 square meters of shop and storage space, and 

o 2320 square meters of office space for administration and flight operations. 

The project was delivered via a traditional design-bid-build approach. Design took place 2003 to 

2004 and construction 2005 to 2006. CH2M Hill, Corvallis, Oregon was the lead Architectural/ 

Engineering (AE) firm. The firm established a collaborative electronic environment where 3D 

design models provided a vehicle for visual communication with the client and among team 

members. Information was also stored and shared via a non-graphic project database. 

The client for this project was the Colorado Army National Guard. Consultants included CooverClark and Associates, Paragon (for land surveying), GEOCAL (for geotechnical engineering), 

and Rolf Jensen and Associates (fire suppression systems). The General Contractor was PCL 

Construction Services and the CM was Troy. There were approximately 36 subcontractors on 

this project. 

Although the client defined the information requirements for the project, the Buckley Army 

Aviation Support Facility project is an example of a design firm-led information strategy 
49 

directed at enhancing the firm’s project delivery performance. CH2M Hill has invested in 

developing a standardized four-phase design process that defines a uniform scope and set of 

deliverables for each phase. In addition, the firm has developed a number of proprietary software 

tools to support this design approach. 

4.6.1 Benefits Realized 

The major business driver for this project was schedule. By creating 3D models that could be 

shared and reviewed with the client via Live Meeting sessions, communication was improved 

and decision-making expedited. In addition, analyses such as structural and lighting were 

performed using the design models. The technology was deployed in response to this specific 

project schedule requirement. 

4.6.2 Who Benefited 

All parties – owner, consultants and contractor – benefited from the ability to deliver the project 

on time. The contractor was a major beneficiary since the contract provided for liquidated 

damages if construction extended beyond 2006. However, the model was not deemed sufficiently 

accurate for the extraction of quantities for cost estimating. 

4.6.3 Information Packages Exchanged 

The primary information package exchanged was 3D geometry. This was communicated via an 

Oracle application, CADView-3D. This tool was used throughout the design process to provide 

virtual walk-throughs. Design review comments were logged in DR Checks (Design Review and 

Checks System). 

Building geometry, materials and light fixture locations and types were exchanged with lighting 

analysis programs. 

Structural member dimensions, locations and sizes were extracted from the model for structural 

analysis. This information exchange was two-way, with the analysis program updating the 

structural model. 

Non-geometric data were stored in a project database. They could be queried from within the 

model or via SQL and exported to Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel format for sharing with 

other team members. 

The following diagram shows the information packages in all formats exchanged during the 

project. 
50 

Buckley Army Aviation Support Facility
51 

4.6.4 Issues Identified 

CH2M Hill’s standard project delivery approach was at odds with the flow of information and 

decision-making necessary to support the 3D modeling approach. As a result, model production 

fell behind schedule. This prompted the team to take shortcuts that proved problematic. Specific 

issues included: 

• Modeling began before there was an opportunity to define project procedures so that 

quantities could be extracted consistently and accurately. This prevented the use of 

automated quantity take-offs 

• Details developed without referencing the model were inconsistent with the design, and 

• The team attempted to use a two-way interface between the Bentley Structural and the 

structural analysis program (Midas). The promise was that the analysis would update the 

member sizes in the model and load model information into the analysis tool if members 

were changed in the model. However, every update to the model from Midas required 

manual intervention because the analysis program always resized members around their 

centerlines. The model then needed to be manually updated to align steel surfaces. This 

proved to be very cumbersome. The team used the automated approach through design 

development and then abandoned it. 

4.6.5 Recommendations for Future Efforts 

The introduction of a building modeling approach changes the way the design team must work. 

Specific recommendations in this regard include: 

• Spend more time setting up the project before the work begins 

• Do more model work in the concept phase 

• Schedule engineering decisions sooner, and 

• Strictly enforce that details are generated from model extractions. 

Software capabilities for two-way exchanges between the design model and structural analysis 

require further development. 

Because this is a change in work process, it is critical to engage the team in the change process 

and win their endorsement. 
52 

5. Planning, Executing and Managing Information Handovers 

Figure 5-1 illustrates the steps in a successful information handover. 

Figure 5-1: Information Handover Steps 

5.1 Overview 

The following is a summary description of each step. 

• Information Strategy: Every organization involved in the design, procurement, construction 

or operation of capital facilities should develop an information strategy. The strategy will be 

driven by business purpose. The information strategy should prioritize information and assign 

a business value to various information packages. The strategy should also be consistent with 

the organization’s data security policies. 

• Information Handover Requirements: The organization must define the contents as well as 

the appropriate information form and format for each information package required and also 

consider the associated metadata. This step will inform the Project Information Handover 

Plan. 

• Project Information Handover Plan: This plan not only covers the information handover 

requirements, but also covers responsibilities and implementation methods. In particular, the 

originator of each information package must be identified. Conflicting handover requirements 

of the various team members, particularly format preferences, must be resolved. 

Determine 

Requirements 

Create 

Handover 

Plan 

Implement 

Handover 

Plan

Establish 

Handover 

Strategy 

Information 

Strategy 

Project 

Information 

Handover 

Plan 
53 

• Implementation: This step includes technical implementation as well as establishment of 

project procedures, contractual responsibilities and training programs. 

5.2 Information Strategies 

The organization's information strategy should cover the following topics: 

1. What facility information is important 

2. When this information is created and by whom 

3. Contractual, legal and regulatory issues related to this information 

4. Who within the organization will be responsible for capturing, checking and maintaining 

the information 

5. How the organization’s data management and security policies will be applied to this 

information 

5.2.1 Information Strategies for the General Buildings Sector 

The Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide (CFIHG) Part 1 suggests that an 

information handover approach must derive from a facility life cycle information strategy 

defined by the owner. In the general buildings sector, however, there appear to be at least four 

different and effective information strategies: 

1. Owner Strategy to Optimize Facility Life Cycle Value: The first is the strategy envisioned 

by the CFIHG Part 1. Owners endeavor to improve facility life cycle operations and reduce 

total life cycle costs by first identifying the information packages critical to both project and 

long-term facility management and then defining information handover requirements. In the 

general buildings sector, major owners taking this approach include U.S. federal government 

agencies, particularly the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 

the Department of Defense (DoD). The Construction Operations Building Information 

Exchange (COBIE) project, which is funded by NASA and executed by the Engineer 

Research and Development Center at the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory 

(CERL), is the most current effort. 

2. Owner Strategy to Improve Project Delivery: Another owner-initiated strategy focuses on 

improving construction project delivery. In 2004, the Construction Users Roundtable 

(CURT) released a white paper (WP-1202), Collaboration, Integrated Information and the 

Project Lifecycle in Building Design, Construction and Operation. This paper was produced 

by CURT’s Architectural/ Engineering (AE) Productivity Committee, which was convened 

to address the perception of inadequate, poorly coordinated AE drawings that result in 

difficulties in the field, leading to cost and schedule overruns. CURT directed this committee 

to evaluate how alternative processes, particularly the use of information technology 

combined with changes in project structure and delivery methods, might address these issues. 

Starting in 2004, General Motors (GM) Corporation, a CURT member, assisted by Ghafari 

Associates as AE and technology integrator, undertook a series of capital projects that have 

moved progressively toward full virtual design and construction before any activity begins 

on-site. They have progressively eliminated 2D drawing submissions in favor of direct 

electronic data exchanges and 3D reviews. GM’s goal is to reduce waste, non value-added 

work and rework on the construction site, thereby achieving lower cost, higher quality, 

improved schedule and greater safety. 
54 

3. Consultant or Contractor Strategy to Improve Project Delivery: A very different 

strategy, often with similar results, is a designer- or contractor-led effort to optimize building 

design and/or construction in one or more performance dimensions (building performance, 

systems coordination, cost, schedule, quality) and thus create a competitive advantage for the 

company or team. Major design firms, including Anshen+Allen, Architects, CH2M Hill and 

SOM have embarked on path toward increased building performance simulation and design 

validation in areas such as lighting, thermal performance and sustainability. In addition, firms 

such as Anshen+Allen, Architects, Ghafari Associates and NBBJ now develop design models 

that can be handed over for purposes such as cost estimating, interference checking, 

constructability reviews and 4D simulations. Holder Construction, Webcor Builders and 

Mortenson Construction are examples of construction companies that seek to work with 

design firms to achieve bidirectional transfers of building and systems geometry and 

assemblies. 

4. Supply Chain Strategy: Perhaps the most well-developed information strategy in the 

general building segment is a supply chain strategy. Supply chain strategies seek to 

streamline information flow from design through analysis, detailing, fabrication and erection 

to eliminate lag time and redundancies. The goal is to deliver product better, faster and at a 

lower cost, creating competitive advantage for the entire supply chain. The American 

Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) began an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) initiative 

in 1999. Very quickly, users of the CIMSteel Integration Standards Release 2 (CIS/2) data 

exchange standard were able to reduce the time it takes to design, procure and erect a steel 

structure, at the same time reducing field interferences and waste, and thus cost. Structural 

engineers, Thornton Tomasetti, first engaged in bidirectional data exchange with steel 

detailers and fabricators for the Soldiers Field project and succeeded in shortening the 

construction schedule by 4 months. The steel supply chain initiative was quickly followed by 

a precast concrete effort led by an ad hoc organization, the Precast Concrete Software 

Consortium. 

In establishing an information strategy, each organization examines its facility-related business 

regulations, decisions and processes and defines the information required by each, known as an 

“information package.” It prioritizes information packages based on business value. For 

example, a comprehensive inventory of light fixtures might be helpful, but that information may 

have lower business value than knowing the rentable area of the building. If a certain information 

package is used in many business processes, its value increases. Another way to identify highpriority information packages is by looking at businesses processes that are inefficient and/or 

costly due to lack of information. 

Once the organization has identified its high-priority information packages, it then determines 

when in the facility life cycle those information packages are created and by whom. Some 

information packages may be created across multiple life cycle phases and by several different 

organizations. This is typically the case with commissioning information, for example. 

Information developed in one project phase may not be used at all in the next sequential phase, 

but may have great value in downstream processes. For example, although it may not be 

important for the contractor to know the reserve capacity of a facility’s cooling system, that 

information will be important if the facility is ever expanded or converted to another use. 
55 

Therefore, that information should be required at the handover point from design to construction. 

It will be critical to identify the next user of each information package as well as the party 

responsible for receiving each information package, ensuring its completeness and maintaining 

its integrity until its next use. 

By defining the contents of high-value information packages, as well as when, how and by 

whom those packages are utilized, and when and by whom the information is created, the 

strategy provides guidance to all participants in capital facility projects on appropriate 

information handover requirements and also informs the issue of appropriate data forms and 

formats 

5.2.2 Contents of the Information Strategy 

It is critical that those making day-to-day decisions on capital projects understand the high-level 

purpose of information handover. By communicating the ultimate use and relative importance of 

various information packages, the information strategy permits designers, project managers and 

contractors to make appropriate decisions about handovers on their projects. In addition, the 

information strategy serves as the source document for detailed handover requirements and 

project-specific handover plans and for integration with enterprise applications. 

The major sections of the facility life cycle information strategy should include, at a minimum: 

• Management policy statement, stressing the business importance of successful 

information handover 

• Identification of major information packages with: 

o Explanation of their business purpose and importance 

o Life cycle phases in which they are created 

o Who creates each information package, in terms of project or facility role? Is this an 

internal or external role? The precise individual and external organization will be 

identified in the project information handover plan. 

o Business processes in which they are used 

• Conformance of information handovers with company policies regarding: 

o Contracts and procurement policies 

o Legal and regulatory compliance 

o Security 

o Allocation and management of information technology resources 

• Assigning responsibilities for: 

o Establishing appropriate contractual and procurement terms to ensure that required 

information packages are handed over 

o Ensuring that security policies are enforced during information handovers 

o Seeing that information handovers occur on a specific project 

o Establishing the system infrastructure for receiving information handovers 

o Assuring the quality of information handed over 

o Maintaining and managing handover information over time 
56 

5.3 Information Handover Requirements 

The purpose of an information strategy is to communicate the ultimate use and relative 

importance of key information packages from the perspective of the organization creating the 

strategy. The next step is to define the contents of those key information packages, select an 

appropriate form and format for their handover and determine metadata requirements. 

5.3.1 Applying an Existing Standard 

Most organizations are able to describe the information they need at a summary level. Defining 

the exact contents of each information package is more challenging. The best approach is to 

apply a model view or use case that has already been defined, if one exists. Examples are the 

U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA) Spatial Program view of the Industry Foundation 

Classes (IFC) model (www.gsa.gov/bim) and the use cases defined for CIS/2 information 

exchanges in the steel supply chain. In these cases, multiple software vendors have already 

developed implementations. The COBIE specification discussed earlier and the Early Design 

Information Exchange specification originally initiated under the International Alliance for 

Interoperability (IAI) and now continuing under the U.S. National BIM Standard (NBIMS) both 

detail the contents and format for certain information packages but are not yet broadly 

implemented in commercial software packages. Both are included in the NBIMS 

(www.nbims.org). 

 

There is no single standard that currently addresses all of the general building industry’s 

handover requirements. In fact, there are gaps where no standards exist and other solutions must 

be used. However, not every information package has the same level of interoperability 

requirements. It is important to focus on the highest priority packages and those for which a 

standard format is most critical. Begin by understanding the uses of each prioritized information 

package. 

5.3.2 Uses of Information Packages 

Information packages have different uses. Understanding the uses of your organization’s 

prioritized information packages allows you to maximize the utility of the information while 

minimizing the complexity and cost of its capture and management. 

Questions that should be answered include: 

• Who and what system(s) will use the information and where will it need to be accessed? 

Which users and systems will view only and which, if any, will update? Obviously, the 

information package needs to be in a consumable format for its intended downstream 

users. 

• Will this information be updated? Some percentage of the information packages will be 

static; i.e., they will be “frozen” at a specific point in time. An example would be an 

occupancy permit or a test report. Static information can be captured in a standard 

archival format such as PDF/A (ISO 19005-1:2005, Document management - Electronic 

document file format for long-term preservation - Part 1: Use of PDF 1.4) and should be 

protected from alteration. Good metadata will be required to permit the searching and 

retrieval of static information in unstructured form. 
57 

• Which and how many versions of the information package need to be handed over? For 

example, does the owner need both the as-designed and the as-constructed information? 

A common owner mistake is requesting so many handovers of evolving information that 

it is unclear, after the project is complete, which information package is the final, 

accurate one. If multiple versions are to be handed over, then data management and 

configuration control (i.e., tracking which analysis run produced which handover package 

and which changes within the model) will be critical. 

• Is this information handover iterative? An example would be information handed over for 

design review and coordination. This type of handover must be executed quickly and 

efficiently. Often it is preferable to use proprietary formats for this type of handover. 

• Is this information handover two-way? In other words, will the recipient be revising or 

adding to the information package and sending it back? A two-way information exchange 

is technically more difficult and also requires the ability to distinguish what has changed 

and to maintain an audit trail of which party created and/or changed which information 

when. Some proprietary solutions work better for this. 

• How long will the information be retained? There are multiple factors that contribute to 

this assessment, including: 

o Regulatory and legal requirements 

o Importance of the information to business functions 

o When in the facility life cycle the information will be needed 

o Intended life span of the facility 

• How frequently will the information be accessed or updated? Data that are in constant use 

can be expected to be converted to new formats as the organization’s IT environment 

evolves. Data that are seldom used, however, risk being forgotten. Monitoring should be 

put in place to flag any data in proprietary formats threatened with obsolescence. These 

are the information packages for which a standard format is most desirable. 

There are four major categories of information forms and formats. Figure 5-2 identifies their 

comparative longevity and reusability. The terms structured, unstructured, standard and 

proprietary are defined and discussed in detail in Section 3. 

Figure 5-2: Longevity and Reusability of Information Forms and Formats 
58 

In deciding on a standard format one must assess the level of adoption, the availability of reliable 

implementations and the cost of using the standard. Also, who will be the downstream users of 

the data? Will these users have access at a reasonable cost to software that supports the standard? 

It is also critical to consider the level of technological expertise of the potential information 

providers. Assuming that a standard format is available and well-supported by commercial 

application software, are the potential consultants, contractors and suppliers capable of creating a 

complete and accurate information package in that format? If it is unlikely that the level of 

technological expertise in the marketplace will support the optimal information handover 

approach, the facility owner must either provide training or modify the information strategy. 

Careful thought should be given to whether the short-term cost of providing training outweighs 

the long-term benefits of having the facility information in structured form and standard format. 

5.4 Project Information Handover Plan 

The information strategy: 

• Specifies information required for decision-making, work processes and regulatory 

compliance (information packages) 

• Prioritizes these information packages 

• Identifies by whom and when in the facility life cycle these information packages are 

created, and 

• Identifies by whom or what process and when in the facility life cycle these information 

packages are used. 

The handover requirements define, for each information package: 

• Content 

• Uses 

• Preferred form and format 

• Metadata requirements, and 

• Retention. 

The project information handover plan brings together the information handover content, format 

and metadata requirements and the project-specific conditions to ensure that the required 

information handovers can be executed. 

5.4.1 Developing the Project Information Handover Plan 

The information strategy and the handover requirements are generalized for any number of 

locations, facility types, project scopes and delivery methods. The challenge of the project 

information handover plan is to apply these general requirements to the specific project so that 

high-priority, correct and properly formatted information packages are dependably, timely and 

cost-effectively handed over by the originating members of the project team. 

5.4.2 From General to Specific 

Important considerations in tailoring the general guidance to the specific project include: 

• Jurisdiction-specific requirements. Since the built environment is typically regulated at 
59 

the local level, pay attention to requirements that vary based on locale, including: 

o Retention 

o Hard copy 

o Wet signatures or physical stamps 

o Digital signatures/ transmission, and 

o Information handover(s) to the jurisdiction. 

• Each team member’s responsibility for work processes that create priority information 

packages. This is an area of great variability, since many companies play multiple roles 

on some projects and entirely different roles on others. For example, some owners may 

self-perform some construction work and a firm that is the design engineer on one project 

may be the construction manager on another. Whether key information handovers are 

occurring within a single organization or across multiple companies affects the legal 

complexity and the need for data management at the overall project level. Typically, a 

firm will manage its own data and data exchanges until that data is released to outside 

companies. 

• Specific software products in use by team members. Until the general building industry 

achieves much better software interoperability, this will be a constant question, 

exacerbated by the increasing prevalence of the use of multiple analysis programs for 

design optimization. What capabilities do the software packages have for reading/writing 

data in formats compatible with applications used by other project team members? These 

data exchanges will require testing and documentation of required user practices to 

ensure that non-exchangeable data types are not used. 

• Requirements for information sharing among team members within the project, as well as 

for handoff to downstream processes. The concept of information handover seems to 

imply relinquishing ownership and management of that data, similar to the handing over 

of as-built drawings at project closeout. However, many data handovers during project 

planning, design and construction are iterative, with information added, reviewed, 

updated and then further developed. Iterative exchanges are perhaps the most difficult to 

manage inasmuch as they require tracking versions of data sets. They are particularly 

challenging when a model developed by one team member is handed off to an analysis 

application that modifies the model and the modified model is then returned to the 

original author. In this circumstance, tracking who is responsible for each change is 

critical. 

• Each organization’s experience and capacity to work with data standards and structured 

data forms. The teams most successfully using BIM consider BIM expertise in selecting 

project team members. Many organizations launching a BIM project are frustrated by a 

key team member’s inability or refusal to participate in the electronic process. 

5.4.3 Balancing Costs and Benefits 

There will be some cost associated with both the project information planning process and the 

project team members’ compliance with the plan. Based on the case studies documented in this 

guide, these costs are more than offset by benefits. Benefits do not accrue evenly to all 

stakeholders, however, and are not necessarily proportionate to costs incurred. The compensation 

model for the project participants should recognize this fact and create appropriate incentives for 

all team members. 
60 

5.4.4 Handover Plan Contents 

The project information handover plan should define a comprehensive approach to the consistent 

creation, management, use and exchange of all information related to both the execution of the 

project and the priority information packages identified as deliverables at project closeout. The 

plan should document: 

• Project-specific information package sources and when produced 

• All uses of priority information packages generated during the project in subsequent life 

cycle phases 

• Format for each information package 

• Required metadata 

• Handover method, and 

• Clear assignment of responsibility for all information creation, handover, quality and 

compliance monitoring activities 

The following topics should be considered when developing the project information handover 

plan. 

5.4.5 Information Quality Considerations 

Processes must be agreed upon and put in place at project startup to ensure the quality of the 

information to be handed over. These should be part of the project’s overall quality plan. 

Properties of information for which quality requirements should be assessed include: 

• Clarity/ Consistency: Clear and shared definitions: do creators and users of information 

use the same codes and terms with the same meaning? Is information received from 

different sources consistent in terms of naming, units and relationships? Be thorough 

about developing and enforcing standard terminology. 

• Accessibility: Where, how and to whom the information is or is not available: is the 

information easily accessible? Adequately secured? This will, at a minimum, require the 

designation of a team member to be responsible for managing information handovers. 

Hopefully, automated systems can be used to assist team members in delivering and 

logging their handovers and accessing the information they require. 

• Usability: Can the information be organized and presented differently for different users? 

For example, a cost estimator or specification writer views facility information much 

differently than the design engineer who created it. Are there multiple copies or versions 

of this information? If so, is there a master copy from which the others are derived? With 

BIM, there is frequently a considerable difference in the way the design team models the 

building compared to how the construction team models it. For example, the designers 

may model a large slab as a single object. The contractor may model it as a number of 

smaller slabs, defined by his pours. One way to handle these differences is to have the 

contractor, assuming he is involved during design, provide his objects for the design team 

to incorporate into the model. The second approach is to create a second construction 

model. This would then require some way of referencing the design model to ensure 

maintenance of design intent. 

• Completeness: How much of the required information is available: is the full content of 
61 

each information package supplied? Is all the required information routinely created by 

the project team in their normal course of activities, or do they need to do something 

special? Another issue here is that an information package may be generated by multiple 

organizations and/or in multiple phases. Thus the handover is not a single deliverable, but 

two or more deliverables that must be merged in some fashion to create the required 

information package. 

• Timeliness: The availability of the information at the time required: is the current version 

of the information team members require available, and is it available when they need it? 

The project schedule should accurately reflect when information handovers are required. 

However, the transfer of data, particularly if it must be translated or checked, may add 

time that is not reflected in the schedule. A second issue is when in-progress information 

should be communicated to other team members. Sharing in-progress work too 

transparently may result in other team members’ scrambling to accommodate a change 

that really is not a change; it is just a “what-if” study. 

• Accuracy: How close to the truth the information is: is the accuracy of the information 

known and does it meet requirements? It is important to determine both the level of detail 

and the level of precision expected at various points in the project process. Clearly the 

“build it first digitally” approach requires a very complete and very precise model for all 

systems included before the project enters physical construction. However, this is not the 

level of accuracy required in conceptual design. Some organizations, such as the U.S. 

Coast Guard, have defined levels of model detail required at project milestones based on 

the Uniformat levels. 

• Cost: The cost incurred in obtaining the information and making it available for use: is 

the information supplied in a form and format that means the cost of maintaining it 

throughout the life of the asset has been minimized? What about the costs of managing 

and quality assuring the information handovers during the project process? Information 

management may be a new cost item for many organizations. It is important that business 

managers understand that there is a cost to this activity when they determine project 

staffing and fees. 

5.4.6 Information Quality Management 

The project information handover plan should provide an information quality management 

framework that describes the information handover in terms of scope, contents, constraints, 

coding, timing and procedures. 

The information quality management framework should address: 

• What is to be handed over and in what format 

• Required metadata 

• How the information is to be handed over and receipt acknowledged 

• Time period allowed for verification of transfer and checking 

• Quality metrics for the information and the process to ensure that the information is of 

the required quality, and 

• The procedure to be followed if and when incorrect or incomplete data is found. 
62 

5.4.7 Logistics 

The project information handover plan should make clear: 

• Who will produce each required information package 

• When they will deliver the information package 

• How they will deliver the information package 

• Who will receive the information handover 

• Where the handover information be stored, and 

• Who will be responsible for its management and integrity. 

5.4.8 New Project Roles 

Managing data exchanges during the project process is typically the responsibility of the project 

team. As the AISC suggested in the 2005 Code of Standard Practice, the responsibility for 

managing the model and the data exchanges should be assigned to a specific organization on the 

team. The owner should also designate responsibility within its IT group for receiving the 

appropriate information handovers at project closeout, archiving and maintaining the data and 

making it accessible to downstream users. 

5.4.9 Handover Methods 

The method of handover will depend to a certain extent on the form of the information to be 

handed over. Owners may continue to require information to be handed over as paper records, 

most often in conjunction with digital surrogates. Where this is required, it should be clearly 

noted in the project information handover plan. 

For electronic handover, there are a number of approaches that can be adopted. Efforts should be 

made to provide the entire project team controlled access to a shared repository of accurate 

project information and to minimize redundancy, data re-entry and the effort required to conform 

multiple versions of the same information. There are a number of possible approaches to doing 

this and these are somewhat dependent on the information strategy: 

• Owner System: The owner implements an information system and provides controlled 

access to all project participants, internal and external. Based on project role, the various 

participants upload deliverables to the information system at the required handover points 

and/or retrieve the information required for their activities. This approach is designed for 

an owner-driven strategy of optimizing facility life cycle costs and operations. The 

challenge with this type of system is that it may not support all information exchanges 

necessary between project team members. 

• Third Party System Based on Owner Requirements: A consultant, construction 

manager or contractor establishes a system to capture the information packages required 

by the owner and then hands over the populated system to the owner at the end of the 

project. This approach can be used where the outside organization already has a wellestablished infrastructure, but the owner does not. It is useful in providing a framework 

within which the owner will be able to manage key information packages over the long 

term. It is consistent with an owner-driven strategy to optimize facility life cycle costs 

and operations but, again, may not support information handovers between team 

members during design and construction. 
63 

• Cross-Organizational System: A consultant, application service provider, construction 

manager or contractor implements and manages a shared information system that is 

populated with information throughout the project by all participants. This approach is 

consistent with a supply chain or project delivery optimization strategy and is the 

approach recommended by AISC. In this approach, the information to be handed over to 

the owner will likely be a subset of all information accumulated. The current lack of 

robust data management tools means that the selection and transfer of the owner-required 

handover data to the owner’s system may require additional effort. 

• Information Handover as Discrete Project Closeout Task: Each organization 

participating in the project uses its own in-house systems to assemble the information and 

then exchanges information periodically on a one-to-one basis with other team members 

or the owner. At project closeout, some team member is designated to go back and 

assemble the owner-required information packages. Experience with Operations and 

Maintenance Support Information (OMSI), which is an example of this approach, 

indicates that the information gathering and formatting (not in structured form) effort to 

produce a modest group of information packages costs US $40,000 for a typical Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) facility. In addition, this approach fails to 

support a high level of project collaboration and integration. This unmanaged type of data 

exchange with an add-on task of assembling information packages after the fact is 

undesirable under any strategy. 

5.4.10 Data Transfer Methods 

In the past, data were usually transferred on magnetic or optical media, such as 3.5-inch floppy 

disks, magnetic tapes or CD-ROMs. Today, such transfers are usually accomplished by 

electronic transfer across a public or private data network. 

The method of data transfer should be agreed by the parties prior to the exchange of any 

information. Security issues must be addressed. It may be necessary to hand over certain design 

or contractual information on paper to meet with legal requirements. The requirements for paper 

documents need to be carefully considered in relation to the ability to create verifiable copies of 

information from electronic storage and the legal admissibility of such information. 

5.4.11 Timing 

The frequency and timing of information handovers must be settled. Issues to be covered 

include: 

• Will there be a specific milestone at which various players deliver information packages, 

or will the information be built up throughout the project? 

• Will trial handovers be required? It is advisable to test the handover technique and 

participants’ understanding of the requirements early on to avoid reworking large 

quantities of data. 

• If data conversion is required, how long will that take? 

5.4.12 Responsibilities 

Once the required handover information has been specified and documented, the participants in 

the project need to agree responsibilities for: 
64 

• Creation of information 

• Security of information 

• Quality assurance of information 

• Gathering third party information (e.g., equipment vendor documentation) 

• Getting information into the right format 

• Assigning metadata 

• Implementation of the information management systems 

• Managing the information through the project duration, and 

• Assuming responsibility for the information upon project closeout. 

5.4.13 Storing and Preserving Handover Information 

Data preservation is a highly complex issue. Paper-based preservation focuses on preserving the 

physical entity. With digital data, preserving the physical media on which the data is stored 

solves only part of the problem. Digital preservation requires not only refreshing the physical 

media and ensuring that it can be read, but also ensuring that the digital data is not changed or 

corrupted and that programmatic access to the data is maintained. 

Media refreshing ensures that data will not be lost due to deterioration of the media on which it is 

stored. An example of this would be copying data archived on one storage media to new storage 

media on a scheduled basis. Ensuring that the file is not changed or corrupted can be handled by 

techniques such as a checksum or digital signatures. This is called “bit preservation.” With the 

rapid turnover of devices, processes and software, the more difficult issues are the availability of 

hardware that can read the media and of software that can display the content. 

Archiving the data in active, online storage rather than on external media best solves the media 

problem. Requiring information to be handed over in formats that are defined by de jure

standards organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is the 

best protection against format obsolescence. 

5.5 Implementation of the Project Information Handover 

Implementation requires the alignment of work processes and software tools to produce and 

deliver the required handover information. The greatest efficiency will be achieved if the 

handover process is integrated with the information creation process. This will provide a 

streamlined flow of information. 

Handover requirements (content, format and metadata) should be defined in the contract between 

parties. Unless the information is originally created in the desired form, it may be difficult and 

expensive to convert. Therefore, it is essential that the information strategy and the handover 

requirements be established before project initiation so that contractual requirements for 

information handover can be defined. It is also advisable to clarify the minimum hardware, 

software and communications requirements for each team member. 

5.5.1 Business Considerations 

Over the last ten years, many businesses in the design and construction industry have developed 

two separate IT groups. The first is more traditionally focused, addressing issues of system 

capacity planning, uptime and performance, communications infrastructure, data security and 
65 

internal systems management. The second group merges domain expertise with IT savvy to assist 

the firm in evaluating and deploying client-facing systems such as Building Information 

Modeling (BIM), project management and collaboration. This second group typically has at least 

two tiers: project-focused individuals who provide front-line expertise, technology training and 

support to the teams working on projects and the more strategically focused technology 

visionaries responsible for proposing, evaluating and deploying new technologies and products. 

Large firms may have an additional tier of experts in specific products or technologies. This tier 

is typically involved in customizing solutions for specific markets, clients or projects to create 

competitive advantage. Many businesses are finding it valuable to include this second, domainfocused IT group in proposal/ bid preparation to help business managers assess the staffing, 

training and hard cost impacts of client electronic collaboration and information handover 

requirements. 

5.5.1.1 Project Information Manager 

Although each company participating in the project is responsible for the content, timely delivery 

and management of the information it creates, there is a need to integrate, check, coordinate and 

manage the information received from all parties. Beyond understanding the issues of 

coordinating building systems, this model management activity requires expertise in data 

structures, configuration control and information management. A single entity should be 

designated to serve this function. This entity can be dedicated exclusively to this activity or be a 

team member that is providing other services. The following is a commentary from the AISC’s 

2005 Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges, Appendix A: Digital Building 

Product Models:

When a project is designed and constructed using EDI, it is imperative that an 

individual entity on the team be responsible for maintaining the LPM [Logical 

Product Model]. This is to assure protection of data through proper backup, 

storage and security and to provide coordination of the flow of information to all 

team members when information is added to the model. Team members exchange 

information to revise the model with this Administrator. The Administrator will 

validate all changes to the LPM. This is to assure proper tracking and control of 

revisions. This Administrator can be one of the design team members such as an 

Architect, Structural Engineer or a separate entity on the design team serving this 

purpose. The Administrator can also be the Fabricator’s detailer or a separate 

entity on the construction team serving this purpose. 

As an example, for the Hamilton Building of the Denver Art Museum, the contractor, Mortensen 

Construction, acted as the project information manager. Mortensen executed model sharing 

agreements with other team members. In addition to the 3D architectural model, all major shop 

drawings were submitted in 3D form. Throughout the pre-construction period, many different 

software products were used to create system-specific models that were shared through a project 

website. Mortensen staff linked the design model and the manufacturing (shop drawing) models 

used to build the project. The BIM models became the catalyst for collaboration. They conducted 

interference checks and 4D construction sequence simulations. They used the model data to 

ensure proper placement and tolerancing during construction. 
66 

5.5.1.2 Contractual Terms 

Integrated practice and the replacement of physical documents by information handovers raise 

questions about standard contracts, liability, risk management and insurability. Although there is 

little litigation case history, the emerging consensus is that these changes in when and how 

information is communicated do not alter the basic roles and responsibilities of the team. The AE 

is responsible for the design; the contractor is responsible for constructability issues, construction 

means and methods and shop drawings. What is important is that all parties understand, at each 

handover, the accuracy of the model and its intended uses. 

Commonly used standard contracts do present an obstacle to a collaborative information sharing 

environment. These contracts are based on a legal differentiation between design, a professional 

service, and construction, a contractual and warranty obligation. Design information is conveyed 

via “instruments of professional service” to be used by the contractor. Even when information is 

exchanged electronically, most contracts denote the hard copy as the controlling design 

information. When the project delivery approach eliminates drawings and requires the 

development and use of a shared model, such contractual terms must be changed. Organizations 

such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and the Associated General Contractors of 

America (AGC) are currently working on revised language for standard contracts, but these 

updated standard contracts are not yet available. Businesses must therefore work with legal 

counsel to develop and negotiate special contract clauses that include: 

• Allocation of responsibility for creating information 

• Appropriate access to, reliance on and use of electronic information handed over 

• Responsibility for the updating and security of the data 

• Ownership and downstream uses of the information, and 

• Compensation for team members that recognize the costs and risks they incur and the 

value they deliver. 

The presence of a proposed project information handover plan will greatly facilitate the 

negotiation of these terms. 

5.5.1.3 Liability and Insurance 

Although the AE’s professional liability coverage does not extend to technology-based risks such 

as lost data, virus corruption, or software malfunctions, it does cover broadly defined design 

services, regardless of the means of communication or the form of the instruments of service. A 

new development may be the incorporation of elements designed by team members other than 

the AE. These team members will be legally responsible for their own design negligence and 

should consider insuring themselves appropriately. The model manager plays a critical role in 

tracking the source of each design element and incurs some special liability for data 

mismanagement, corruption or loss. 

5.5.2 Technical Implementation 

The technical implementation must align the hardware, software, data communications and IT 

operations to ensure timely creation and delivery of quality information in the proper form and 

format. It must also establish the proper access controls, data backup and security provisions. 
67 

5.5.2.1 Configuration Management 

For all dynamic information, both standard and proprietary formats, configuration management 

will be very important. The information content of a given model or document will evolve over 

the course of the project, and many will continue to evolve through operations and maintenance. 

However, there may be a need to preserve and access “snapshots” at key points along the facility 

life cycle timeline and know who was responsible for each change. During design and 

construction, configuration management will be the responsibility of the model manager. 

5.5.2.2 Testing 

Initial testing should be performed to ensure that all software selected correctly reads and writes 

the preferred format. Time required for translations and data transfers should be measured. 

Additional testing is required for the software or technique that will be used to maintain an audit 

trail of changes to the model. 

5.5.2.3 Documentation of Best Practices and Project Procedures 

Following the testing, it is important to document any specific user practices necessary to 

achieve the desired outcome. A good example for BIMs is to advise users not to delete a model 

element and add a new one, which will also delete that element’s unique ID, but rather modify 

the element. This will permit the maintenance of the element’s unique ID and allow the tracking 

of changes to that element. 

Documenting project procedures related to information handovers will help clarify new roles and 

responsibilities. The best approach is to write step-by-step work instructions specific to the 

software products(s) in use. The GSA BIM Guide for Spatial Validation, available at 

www.gsa.gov/bim, provides an excellent example of such documentation. 

5.5.2.4 Staffing and Training 

It is advisable to request a contact person on each company’s project team responsible for 

communications concerning information handovers, changes to the system or procedures and 

user training and support. This individual should also be responsible for initiating new users. 

Whether or not all project team members have experience with the software to be used, they all 

require training in the project information handover plan, associated procedures and best 

practices. All persons involved in information generation and handover should understand the 

following: 

• Purpose and use of the information involved 

• Life cycle aspect of information (in particular, the need for information to satisfy future 

life cycle requirements as well as its immediate use) 

• Quality assurance issues (how to verify information) 

• How to create and use the information, and 

• Security issues such as confidentiality, virus checking and backup. 

Project staffing is never static; people will come and go. Provide mechanisms for identifying and 

training new users. 
68 

5.5.2.5 Compliance Checking 

There is a natural reluctance to change the way one works. In order to ensure the stated project 

procedures are followed, compliance checks should be performed periodically. 

5.5.2.6 Continuous Improvement Program 

A Lessons Learned or other continuous improvement program that periodically solicits feedback 

from users will be very effective both in encouraging compliance with project procedures as well 

as in identifying better ways to work. 

5.6 Handover Lessons Learned By Early Adopters 

The advisory panel for this guide contributed a number of insights concerning the potential 

pitfalls and keys to success. 

5.6.1 Challenges 

There were challenges encountered in a number of areas, including: commercial issues, 

entrenched expectations, resistance to change, immature technology and inadequate technology 

infrastructure. 

5.6.1.1 Commercial Issues 

Commercial issues encountered included conflicting business models of different project team 

members. This led to an individual company’s attempting to optimize its own outcome rather 

than the project outcome. 

Another issue that arose was model ownership. A related issue was the expectation on the part of 

some clients that, because a model existed, it could be readily reused for other, not necessarily 

intended, purposes. This raises the need for clarification of the specific information packages to 

be handed over. 

5.6.1.2 Expectations 

Aligning expectations in general was an issue. Persistence of a 2D mentality and insistence on 

traditional project process, phasing and deliverables reduced the effectiveness of streamlined 

computer-based workflows and electronic information handovers. There were problems defining 

deliverables appropriate for the new project approach. 

5.6.1.3 Change Management 

There was also active resistance within project teams to change. A number of advisors reported 

that key project team members promised but failed to work in 3D or simply refused to believe 

the information handed over. In one case, the construction manager insisted on doing a manual 

quantity take-off even though they were supplied with a detailed take-off from the structural 

model by the engineers. Even where there was no active resistance, it was still challenging to 

find staff who could work and problem-solve in new ways. Project team members had different 

levels of IT capability and understanding. There was often a need for continuous training that 

was not always budgeted for or met. The consensus was that these issues are best resolved when 

the client assumes a leadership role and project team members are selected partially based on 

their 3D/ BIM capability. 
69 

5.6.1.4 Immature Technology 

Early adopters encountered a number of challenges that were related to the immaturity of the 

technology. These included: 

• Lack of standard model views 

• Software incompatibility 

• Limited data re-usability and machine interpretability, and 

• High level of effort required to make the electronic information usable by others. This was 

particularly pronounced in two-way exchanges of information (e.g., the results of the 

analysis update the model). 

The root causes of these issues are discussed in Section 3. There is still much work needed to 

develop use cases and model views and develop standard terminology so that advanced software 

systems can fully interoperate. There is also the need for test cases that will permit both software 

vendors and end users to know whether specific products can interoperate effectively. This is the 

area that is being investigated by the IAI buildingSMART initiative internationally and the 

NBIMS project committee in the United States. 

5.6.1.5 Inadequate Technology Infrastructure 

In addition, advisors cited inadequate technology infrastructure in several areas: 

• Wireless access and speed (processing time, bandwidth) 

• Appropriate viewing devices 

• Collaborative tools, and 

• Model repository/model management software. 

5.6.2 Keys to Success 

Advisors were also able to identify common factors that led to success. These focused more on 

human factors and the quality of collaboration. 

5.6.2.1 Human Factors 

Perhaps the greatest success factor was strong leadership, either by the client or executive 

leadership within their own company. Also important were grassroots leadership and buy-in by 

the team. The availability of personnel with process flexibility and skills with the technology 

tools was also a factor. 

5.6.2.2 Quality of Collaboration 

The greater the number of team members who can share project information with confidence, the 

greater the level of efficiency and automation and the more successful the approach. Thus, key 

success factors also included: 

• Transparency and accessibility of electronic information for more people 

• Ability to use the information across the design/ construction team 

• Appropriate quality assurance methods and procedures 

• Collaboration that includes the trades 

• Mutual trust, and 

• Recognition of new project roles, such as information manager. 
70 

6. Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Efforts 

There is no doubt that the use of the advanced technologies described in this guide is yielding 

business results that are needed and valued by the general buildings industry. However, the 

information flow among the parties is still far from seamless. Currently, project teams spend 

weeks of effort working out common modeling practices and data exchange techniques on a 

project-by-project basis. The goal of the information handover methodology defined in Section 5 

is to minimize this effort as the general buildings industry moves to true interoperability. 

Currently, most organizations in the general buildings industry quantify neither the cost of the 

effort involved in data exchanges nor cost reductions attributable to improved processes and 

technologies. One recommendation going forward is for all organizations to begin to collect 

these metrics. 

The ability to hand over electronic information predictably and with little or no human 

intervention is key to the general buildings industry’s reaping the full benefits of advanced 

facility design, analysis and management software. In order to achieve this ability, the industry 

must reach a common understanding of what information is necessary to the performance of each 

major business activity. Although standard data formats capable of encoding this information 

exist, particularly the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) Industry Foundation 

Classes (IFCs), needed usage guidance, mappings, test suites, conformance testing methods and 

metrics have yet to be defined. 

Recent work by a number of organizations has provided methodologies, templates and examples 

of successful use case and model view development. This work represents a major step forward 

in that it describes the path along which the industry can progress. 

What are needed now are champions and sponsors for the development of the priority model 

views and test suites necessary for robust interoperability. Once the necessary model views are 

developed, the next challenge will be encouraging software vendors to implement them. The 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) was very successful in this regard because their 

design and construction program is so large and they targeted viable increments for adoption in 

their program. Companies with less clout must combine their efforts with industry initiatives to 

create the critical mass necessary to spur implementations. 

Industry and professional organizations are the logical hosts of these collaborative efforts. The 

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) serves as a role model. Over a period of five 

years, they invested U.S. $1 million in technical, stakeholder communication, education and 

marketing efforts to support the use of CIMSteel Integration Standards Release 2 (CIS/2) for data 

exchanges in the structural steel supply chain. A major measure of their success was that 

fourteen software products, used throughout the steel supply chain, supported the standard at the 

end of five years. Additional software products have added CIS/2 support since. 

An additional challenge is managing models that are used in cross-organizational workflows. 

Although very robust software tools for managing electronic project documents and workflows 

exist, these tools have not yet been extended to handle models at the component level. The need 
71 

remains to apply security at the component level and to maintain an audit trail of who accessed 

or changed which components when. There are some early implementations of such “model 

management” software but these are not as yet broadly available commercially. 

Finally, the impact of commercial issues – contracts, liability, insurance, and so forth – cannot be 

underestimated. Fortunately, the Construction Users Roundtable (CURT), the American Institute 

of Architects (AIA) and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) have all 

acknowledged these issues and begun to address them. 

There are a number of current initiatives, discussed in this guide, that are addressing parts of the 

problem. These initiatives, if properly resourced, could contribute to a comprehensive solution. 

Businesses, industry and professional organizations in the general buildings sector must provide 

those resources. 
72 

7. APPENDICES 7.1 APPENDIX A – Benefits Chart This chart appears courtesy of Paul King, Bentley Systems, Inc. 

Key

 Principal beneficiary 

 Secondary beneficiary 

Project 

stage Benefit area

Design 

team 

Main 

contractor 

Sub 

contractor 

Operator Description Benefits 

Visualisations, animations, and virtual reality 







 Animations, visualisations and virtual reality materials are 

produced as a by-product of the model. Simulations can help to improve health safety by considering aspects such as working at height - for construction and subsequent facilities management. 

- More effective promotion of a scheme and sta- A more effective and transparent design proce- Improved health and safety management 

Coordination and clashing 





 The virtual model provides an effective and efficient means of 

coordinating the design elements on a scheme. Although design teams claim to perform coordination and clash detection it is often left to second- and third-tier supply chain partners. 

- Clash free, fully coordinated design model - Lower design cost (design is done once only, - Less burden on the design team during constr

Design analysis 

 Data from the 3D model can be exported quickly and easily to 

design analysis packages and the resultant design data can then be imported seamlessly back into the model. 

- Faster design analysis - Error-free transfer of data between analysis a- Lower design cost and the ability to consider m

Material schedules 





 Component and material schedules are generated automatically 

and accurately from the 3D model, and can be transferred easily to and from proprietary databases or spreadsheets to help estimators, purchasers and designers. 

- Quick production of error-free schedules - Smaller estimating teams - Better awareness of costs as the design deve

Bills of quantities 



 Bills can be produced to any standard and format by exporting 

appropriate data from the model. 

- Quick production of correctly formatted bills w- Lower cost of production 

2D drawings 





 2D drawings are extracted quickly, easily and efficiently from the 

model. As supply chains adopt a model centric approach, the need for drawings will diminish. 

- More cost effective drawing production, with fe- Fully coordinated design deliverables - Accurate and consistent plans, sections and e

Links to project documents 







 The virtual model can be linked to project documents (such as 

specifications, risk assessments, etc) and to suppliers’ product information, either on or off the Web. 

- Easier access to project information for all sta- Better management of component data - More efficient design process 

Stakeholder awareness 







 The virtual model is a powerful tool that helps to convey 

complicated design aspects to stakeholders, and information can be tailored easily to suit the audience. 

- Improved stakeholder awareness - Easier to secure buy-in earlier in a project - More likely to encourage a good response fro

Preliminary, concept and detail design 

Design efficiency 







 A model centric approach makes it more realistic for designers to 

‘do it right first time’, and to consider more design options. It also enables more effective and better integrated decision making. 

- Greater design efficiency - Better value for the client - More profit for the designers and no erosion o
73 

Trade packages 



 Using the virtual model, site teams can produce trade package 

information easily and accurately for tendering and managing subcontractors. Armed with a better understanding of the project, trade contractors are more likely to ‘get it right first time’. 

- Easier compilation of tender information - Tenderers receive information that is correct,  consistent - Lower tender risk contingencies 

Construction planning 



 Virtual models can be linked to master and sub-project 

programmes using proprietary software tools, enabling the works (and changes) to be conveyed graphically via the model. 

- Improved project programming and better und- Better informed stakeholders - Improved health and safety training of site tea

Buildability & logistics 





 Buildability and construction logistics checks are performed in the 

virtual world during the design phase to prevent problems from ever reaching site. 

- More efficient site activities leading to lower co- Greater programme certainty - Improved planning of site laydown areas and 

Clash management 







 Design coordination helps to prevent clashes reaching site, 

thereby eliminating both construction waste and the associated disruption. Fewer queries have to be referred back to the design team because there are fewer errors in the design and the construction team can interrogate the model to resolve queries. 

- Clash free, fully coordinated design and const- Lower construction cost because of less wast- Less burden on the design team during constr- Better certainty of project programme 

Stage payment 



 By monitoring planned and actual progress with a virtual model, 

payment mechanisms can be more accurate and more efficient. 

- Better payment mechanisms - Fewer contractual disputes - Improved transparency of processes 

2D drawings 





 Site teams can produce drawings quickly and easily from the 

model if required, but the need to generate drawings on site is reduced. 

- Less burden on the design team during constr

- Quicker access to better design information by - More effective interaction with specialist suppsubcontractors 

Awareness of works 





 The virtual model can be used to convey elements of the project 

to stakeholders, and to simulate the impact of, for example, incidents that cause congestion on site. It can also help to clarify key interfaces between FM management and games operations. 

- Improved understanding of matters affecting hsite - Greater transparency of site activities - Less disruption to programme 

Procurement, construction & commissioning 

As built information 





 As-built information can be produced easily and more accurately 

because the model is kept current through the construction period, ensuring that the facilities manager will receive high quality data. 

- Easier to produce high quality as built data for - Lower cost of producing as built information 
74 

Population of FM database 



 The virtual model can be used to automatically populate a 

facilities management asset database at the end of construction, generating a large saving in staff resources and cost. 

- Swift, accurate population of the FM database - Lower cost of establishing the FM system 

Managing operations 

  The model can be linked to an FM system to help manage space, 

assets, building maintenance, property and lease details, cable infrastructure and telecommunications. Model data can be loaded onto handheld devices for mobile audits and maintenance work. 

- More efficient facilities management - Staff have easy access to high quality record - Lower cost of operations (including auditing, b

Managing new works and change 





 Provision for maintenance can be built into the design more 

easily, building systems can be viewed using the model, and access by maintenance workers can be simulated. 

- More efficient design and implementation of n- Improved health and safety - Lower cost of managing the facility as it evolv

Links to product information 

  The virtual building can be linked to project documents and to 

suppliers’ product information, either on or off the Web. 

- Easier and quicker access to product informat- Lower cost of sourcing data 

Links to BMS systems 

 Environmental controls, sprinkler systems, lifts etc. can be link to 

the model so that these can be managed graphically 

- More effective facilities management 

Links to security systems 

  The model can be linked to security systems to assist with 

access control, closed circuit TV and fire detection. 

- More effective facilities management 

Links to stock control system 

 Stock control items, such as office partitions and furniture, can be 

managed by linking them to the model. 

- More effective facilities management 

Hazardous material location 







 The construction industry does not use hazardous materials but if 

future legislation were to require, say, all glass fibre insulation to be located in a building, then the model could be interrogated to show its position. 

- Lower cost of complying with legislation 

Building cloning 



 The model contains all of the information needed to build and 

manage a facility, and it could be used to easily duplicate that facility (or parts of it) elsewhere. 

- Much reduced cost or providing similar facilitie

Knowledge management 

  The model is a valuable repository of project knowledge, 

comprising data on design, construction and operation. Such data could be shared with potential purchasers of a facility, or used to assist with due diligence processes when it changes ownership. 

- Easy referencing of project knowledge - Lower cost of due diligence activities 

Sustainability 



 The model contains data relating to sustainability, such as the 

location, quantity and quality of reusable materials. 

- Quick access to high quality sustainability data- Efficient sustainability reporting, auditing and 

Operations, FM & legacy 

Decommissioning 







 The virtual model contains important data about items such as 

structural walls that decommissioning contractors can use to minimise the risk of, for example, uncontrolled collapse. 

- Safe decommissioning - Lower risk contingencies in decommissioning 
75 

7.2 APPENDIX B – Glossary 

2D: Two Dimensional 

3D: Three Dimensional 

4D: Incorporating time (schedule) 

Administrative Metadata: Metadata used to manage the information and includes such fields as: 

intellectual property status, file format, file size, creating system, archiving date, archiving 

expiration date and archiving refresh interval 

AE: Architecture and Engineering 

AEC: Architecture, Engineering and Construction

AEX: Automating Equipment Information Exchange 

AGC: Associated General Contractors of America 

AGCxml: A suite of XML schemas for exchanging construction project information between 

software applications used by facility owners and AEC firms 

AIA: American Institute of Architects 

AISC: American Institute of Steel Construction 

Avoidance Costs: Costs incurred to prevent or minimize the impact of technical interoperability 

problems 

BIM: Building Information Modeling 

Bit Preservation: Process by which one can ensure that a file is not changed or corrupted and 

can be handled by techniques such as checksum or digital signatures 

BLIS: Building Life Cycle Interoperable Software 

BMS: Building Management System 

BREEAM: BRE Environmental Assessment Method – British standard used to assess the 

environmental performance of both new and existing buildings 

buildingSMART: An initiative of the International Alliance for Interoperability to accelerate 

achieving the dynamic and seamless exchange of accurate, useful information on the built 

environment among all members of the building community throughout the lifecycle of a 

facility. 

CAD: Computer-Aided Design 

CCITT: Comite Consultatif International Telephonique at Telegraphique (now ITU) 

CERL: Construction Engineering Research Laboratory 

CFIHG: Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide 

CIFE: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering 

CII: Construction Industry Institute 

CIM: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum 
76 

CIMSTEEL: Computer Integrated Manufacturing of Constructional Steelwork 

CIS/2: CIMSteel Integration Standards, Release 2 

CityGML: An open data model and XML-based format for storing and exchanging virtual 3D 

city models 

CM: Construction Manager 

CMMS: Computerized Maintenance Management Systems 

CNC: Computerized Numerical Control 

COBIE: Construction Operations Building Information Exchange 

Configuration Control: Information that moves through a project as its status changes. For 

example a drawing may start as “Issued for comment,” change to “Issue for construction” and be 

updated to “As built.”

CSI: The Construction Specifications Institute 

CURT: Construction Users Roundtable 

Defacto Standards: Formats that may have originated with a single vendor but have been made 

publicly available and are supported by multiple vendors and products 

De jure Standards: Standards maintained by an official standards organization, such as ISO or 

ITU 

Delay costs: Costs incurred when interoperability problems delay completion of a project or the 

length of time a facility is not in normal operation 

Deliverables: The physical information in an information handover 

Descriptive Metadata: Metadata that identify and describe the information with fields such as 

creator, title, subject matter, responsible organization 

DoD: Department of Defense 

DoE: Department of Energy 

DTI: U.K. Department of Trade and Industry 

DXF: Data Exchange File 

EAM: Enterprise Asset Management 

EAMS: Enterprise Asset Management Systems 

EDI: Electronic Data Interchange 

ebXML: Electronic Business using eXtensible Markup Language is a modular suite of 

specifications that enables enterprises to conduct business over the Internet. 

Exchange Requirement (ER): A non-technical description of the information needed by a 

business process to be executed, as well as the information produced by that business process 

EXPRESS: A data modeling language and standardized as ISO 10303-11 

FIAPP: Fully Integrated and Automated Project Process 
77 

FM: Facility Management 

Format Registry: Identifies all file formats stored in the archive and their properties, and 

automates the assignation of preservation strategies 

Functional Part (FP): An information handover in sufficient technical detail for software 

implementation 

GBIHG: General Buildings Information Handover Guide 

GCR: Governance Resource Center 

Green Building XML (gbXML): An XML schema developed by Green Building Studio, Inc. to 

facilitate the transfer of building information stored in CAD building information models, 

enabling integrated interoperability between building design models and a wide variety of energy 

analysis tools 

GSA: U.S. General Services Administration 

GUID: Globally Unique Identifiers 

HUT-600: The Helsinki University of Technology Auditorium Hall 600 

HVAC: Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning 

IAI: International Alliance for Interoperability 

ICF: The International Centre for Facilities 

IDM: Information Delivery Manual 

IFC: Industry Foundations Classes - Data elements that represent the parts of buildings or 

elements of the process and contain the relevant information about those parts. IFCs are used by 

computer applications to assemble a computer readable model of the facility that contains all the 

information of the parts and their relationships to be shared among project participants. 

ifc-mBomb: IFC Model Based Operations and Maintenance project 

ifcXML: An XML representation of the IFC EXPRESS model developed by the IAI 

IFD: International Framework for Dictionaries 

IGES: Initial Graphics Exchange Specification 

Information Packages: Facility information required by each step in the information strategy 

process 

Interoperability: Ability to manage and communicate electronic product and project data 

between collaborating firms and within individual companies’ design, construction, maintenance, 

and business process systems 

ISO: International Organization for Standardization 

ITU: (Formerly CCITT) International Telecommunications Union - Committee of the United 

Nations that makes sure all telecommunications devices (like telephones, fax machines, modems 

and so on) can talk to each other, no matter what company makes them or in what country they're 

used 

LBNL: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory 
78 

Lean Construction: An initiative that identifies and attempts to eliminate the seven forms of 

waste: Correction, Overproduction, Motion, Material Movement, Waiting, Inventory, and 

Processing 

LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – standard American accepted 

benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings 

MEP: Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing 

Metadata: Metadata is a component of data which describes the data. It is "data about data." 

Mitigation costs: Costs of activities responding to interoperability problems, including scrapped 

materials costs 

Model Views: BIM information required for specific purposes, such as energy analysis, 

structural analysis, cost estimating, procurement, fabrication, erection and maintenance 

MOU: Memoranda of Understanding 

MVD: Model View Definition 

NASA: U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAVFAC: Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

NBIMS: The U.S. National Building Information Modeling Standard 

NIBS: National Institute of Building Sciences 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology 

OAIS: Open Archival Information System 

OCA: GSA’s Office of the Chief Architect 

OCCS: IAI/CSI Overall Construction Classification System Committee 

OGC: Open Geospatial Consortium 

O & M, OM: Operations and Maintenance 

OMSI: Operations and Maintenance Support Information 

OSCRE: Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate 

PAS: Publicly Available Specification 

PBS: GSA’s Public Building Services 

PDF: Portable Document Format 

Process Map (PM): An overview of the handover process, describing its objects and the phases 

in a project at which the business process is expected to be relevant and identifies all the subprocesses 

Proprietary Format: The format created by specific software applications such as CAD, word 

processing or BIM programs 

RTD: Research and Technology Development 

STEP: Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data 
79 

Structural Metadata: Metadata that describe the internal structure of the information and 

relationships between its components 

Structured Information Form: Data in a structured form that are machine-interpretable without 

human intervention 

TAP: The AIA’s Technology in Architecture Practice group 

TEKES: Finnish National Technology Agency 

UFGS: Unified Facilities Guide Specifications 

Unstructured Information Form: Data that cannot be machine interpreted 

USPI-NL: Uitgebreid Samenwerkingsverband Procesindustrie Nederland - Dutch Process and 

Power industry association that promotes and supports the development and implementation of 

international standards for exchange, sharing and management of life cycle plant data and related 

documents 

XML: Extensible Markup Language 
80 

7.3 APPENDIX C – Bibliography 

AEC3 Ltd. OMSI Report: Overview of OMSI Information in IFC. Pp. 151 – 158. 

American Institute of Architects. Document B141-1997: Standard Form of Agreement Between 

Owner and Architect with Standard Form of Architect’s Services. Washington, D.C., 

1997. 

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 2005 Code of Standard Practice for Steel 

Buildings and Bridges – Appendix A. 18 March 2005.

Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). The Contractor’s Guide to BIM, Edition 1. 

2006. 

Bazjanac, Dr. Vladimir. International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) Technical Advisory 

Group. IAI Blueprint for the Start of the 21st Century. PowerPoint Presentation. 25 

October 2000. 

Construction Industry Institute. Technology Needs Assessment. February 2003. CII Research 

Summary 173-1. 

Construction Users Roundtable (CURT) Architectural/ Engineering Productivity Committee. 

Collaboration, Integrated Information and the Project Lifestyle in Building Design, 

Construction and Operation (WP-1202) August 2004. 

Construction Users Roundtable (CURT). Optimizing the Construction Process: An 

Implementation Strategy (WP-1003). July 2006. 

Eastman, C., F. Wang, S.-J. You, and D. Yang. “Deployment of an AEC Industry Sector Product 

Model.” Computer-Aided Design 37 (2005): 1214 – 1228. 

Fallon, Kristine K. and Mark E. Palmer in cooperation with FIATECH and USPI-NL. The 

Capital Facilities Information Handover Guide, Part 1 (NISTIR 7259). January 2006. 

Federal Facilities Council (FFC) Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, 

National Research Council. Linking the Construction Industry: Electronic Operation and 

Maintenance Manuals: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academy 

Press, 2000. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9904.html. 

FIATECH. Information Flow Map – First Release. In Lifecycle Data Management Project. 

FIATECH. Element 9: Lifecycle Data Management & Information Integration. In Capital 

Projects Technology Roadmap. 2004. 

http://www.fiatech.org/projects/roadmap/workforce.html. 
81 

Fisher, Martin. Framework to Measure the Implementation and Benefits of 3D/4D Modeling/ 

PowerPoint Presentation. 2005. 

Fisher, Martin and Calvin Kam. PM4D Final Report – CIFE Technical Report Number 143. 

Stanford, CA: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University, 2002. 

Gallaher, Michael P., Alan C. O’Connor, John L. Dettbarn, Jr., and Linda T. Gilday. Cost 

Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry (NIST GCR 

04-867). 2004 

Hammer, Michael and James Champy. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business 

Revolution. HarperBusiness, 1993. 

Hannus, Matti, et al. Construction ICT (Information and Communications Technology) Roadmap 

(ROADCON: IST 2001-37278, WP5/ D52). September 2003. 

Khemlani, Lachmi. The IFC Building Model: A Look Under the Hood. 30 March 2004. Internet. 

Available at http://www.aecbytes.com/feature/IFCmodel.htm. Accessed 26 May 2005. 

Leibich, Thomas, Jeffrey Wix, AEC3 with contribution by all WP4 partners. European Network 

for IT in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (prodAEC). Standard Analysis – 

Current AEC Situation – Building Models. 2002. Internet. http://www.prodAEC.com. 

Lipman, Robert R. “Mapping between the CIMSteel Integration Standards and Industry 

Foundation Classes Product Models for Structural Steel.” Presented at the International 

Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, June 14-16, 2006, 

Montreal, Canada. 

Sacks, Rafael (Ph.D.), Charles M. Eastman, Ghang Lee, Ph.D. and David Orndorff, P.E. “A 

Target Benchmark of the Impact of Three-Dimensional Parametric Modeling in Precast 

Construction.” PCI Journal. July-August 2005. Pp. 126 – 139. 

Stephens, Jeff (Editor), et al. IFC Model Based Operation and Maintenance of Buildings (ifcmBomb). D41 Assessment Study (WP4-T41-D41). February 2005. 

Teague, Tom. FIATECH Automating Equipment Information Exchange (AEX) Project. 

Contents - Using XML Schemas for Facilities Equipment, Version 1.0. 19 July 2004. 

Available at http://www.fiatech.org/pdfs/deliverables/AEX/Contents.pdf. 

Teague, Tom, Mark Palmer and Marty Burns. FIATECH Automating Equipment Information 

Exchange (AEX) Project. Using XML Schemas for Facilities Equipment, Version 2.0. 19 

July 2004. Available at http://www.fiatech.org/pdfs/deliverables/AEX/Using_XML.pdf. 
82 

Teague, Tom, Mark Palmer and R.W. Turton. FIATECH Automating Equipment Information \ 

Exchange (AEX) Project. XML Schema Development Guidelines. 3 February 2004. 

Available at 

http://www.fiatech.org/pdfs/deliverables/AEX/XMLSchemaDevelopmentGuidelines.pdf. 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). GSA Public Buildings Service and Office of the 

Chief Architect. GSA BIM Guide Series 01 - Overview. Version 0.85. 2006. 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). GSA Public Buildings Service and Office of the 

Chief Architect. GSA BIM Guide Series 02 - GSA BIM Guide For Spatial Program 

Validation. Version 0.90. 2006. 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). GSA Public Buildings Service. Strategic Plan and 

Framework for Project Information. November 2000. 

White, Stephen A. Introduction to BPMN. IBM Corporation. May 2004. Available at 

http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/Introduction%20to%20BPMN.pdf. 
83 

7.4 APPENDIX D – Links to Information Delivery Specifications and 

Standards 

2005 Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges, 2005. 

http://www.aisc.org/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm?ContentID=27714

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software (BLIS) 

http://www.blis-project.org

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

CIMsteel Integration Standards, Release 2 (CIS/2), 2003. 

http://www.cis2.org

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

CIS/2@GT: Design Computing group in College of Architecture of Georgia Institute of 

Technology (Georgia Tech) is a technical support group in CIS/2 based electronic data 

interchange in structural steel industry. CIS/2@GT is an online technical resource hosted by 

Georgia Tech. 

http://www.arch.gatech.edu/~aisc/

Accessed on 1 March 2007 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) CIS/2 resources 

This website provides a brief overview of CIS/2 and IFC with links to many useful resources, 

papers, and articles. There are also many examples of VRML and IFC models generated from 

the NIST CIS/2 to VRML and IFC Translator. 

http://cis2.nist.gov/

Accessed on 6 March 2007 

EPISTLE Data Handover Guide, 1998. 

Part 1 – http://www.uspi.nl/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=164

Part 2 – http://www.uspi.nl/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=165

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

European CIMSTEEL initiative (1987 – 1998), 

http://www.engineering.leeds.ac.uk/civil/research/cae/past/cimsteel/cimsteel.htm

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

FIATECH’s Automating Equipment Information Exchange (AEX): XML schemas for the 

exchange of equipment information, Version 1.0, 2004. 

http://www.fiatech.org/links.htm#aex

Accessed on 5 January 2007 
84 

FIATECH’s Data Standards Clearinghouse: Provides summary information about the listed 

standards as well as links to the underlying sponsor organization and standards effects. 

http://www.fiatech.org/projects/idim/dscdata.htm

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Green Building XML (gbXML): Developed to facilitate the transfer of building information 

stored in CAD building information models, enabling integrated interoperability between 

building design models and a wide variety of engineering analysis tools and models available. 

http://www.gbxml.org

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) ifcXML: A representation of the IFC EXPRESS 

model developed by the IAI. 

http://www.iai-international.org/Model/IFC(ifcXML)Specs.html

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Industry Foundation Classes – Release 2x (IFC 2x), IFC Technical Guide, Enabling 

Interoperability in the AEC/ FM, 2000. 

http://www.iai-international.org/Model/documentation/IFC_2x_Technical_Guide.pdf 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification), 1996. 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip177-1.htm 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Centre for Facilities 

http://www.icf-cebe.com/

Accessed on February 23, 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10303 Standard for the Exchange of 

Product Model Data (STEP): Multi-part standard 

Published and under development. 

http://www.tc184-sc4.org/SC4_Open/SC4%20Legacy%20Products%20%282001-

08%29/STEP_%2810303%29/

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 12006-2 provides a framework for the 

classification of information about construction works implementations of 12006-2, particularly 

Uniclass in the U.K. and OmniClass in the U.S. 

Published Standard, 2001. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=35333&ICS1=9

1&ICS2=10&ICS3=1

Accessed on 5 January 2007 
85 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 12006-3: 2007 specifies a languageindependent information model which can be used for the development of dictionaries used to 

store or provide information about construction works. It enables classification systems, 

information models, object models and process models to be referenced from within a common 

framework. 

Under Development 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=38706&scopelis

t=PROGRAMME

Accessed on 28 February 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14721: 2003 Defines an archival system 

dedicated to preserving and maintaining access to digital information over the long term 

Published Standard, 2003. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=24683&ICS1=4

9&ICS2=140&ICS3= 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15926: Integration of Life-Cycle Data for 

Process Plants Including Oil and Gas Production, designed to provide a comprehensive standard 

for the description of process plant facilities 

Part 1, Published Standard, 2004. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=29556&ICS1=7

5&ICS2=20&ICS3= 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Part 2, Published Standard, 2003. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=29557&ICS1=2

5&ICS2=40&ICS3=40 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Part 4, Under Development 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=41329&scopelis

t=PROGRAMME 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/ Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 

16739: 2005. This standard covers the general building type. 

Published Standard, 2005. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=38056&scopelis

t=PROGRAMME 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17799 

Information technology -- Security techniques -- Code of practice for information security 

management 

Edition 1, Withdrawn Standard, 2001. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=33441&ICS1=3

5&ICS2=40&ICS3= 
86 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Edition 2, Published Standard, 2005. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=39612&scopelis

t=PROGRAMME

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 19005-1:2005, Document Management – 

Electronic Document File Format for Long-Term Preservation – Part 1: Use of PDF 1.4 

Published Standard, 2005. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=38920&ICS1=3

7&ICS2=100&ICS3=99

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/DIS 82045-5: 2005 

Document management – Part 5: Application of metadata for the construction and facility 

management sector. 

Published Standard, 2005. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=34952&scopelis

t=PROGRAMME 

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

National Building Information Model Standard (NBIMS) 

http://www.nbims.org

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/top/Whatwedo.htm

Accessed on 6 March 2007 

Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS) 01781 Operations and Maintenance Support 

Information (OMSI)

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2001%2078%2023.pdf

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). GSA Public Buildings Service and Office of the 

Chief Architect. GSA BIM Guide Series 01 - Overview. Version 0.85. 2006. 

Draft 

http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/GSA_BIM_01_v05_R2C-a3-

l_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

Accessed on 5 January 2007 
87 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service and Office of the Chief 

Architect. GSA BIM Guide Series 02 - GSA BIM Guide For Spatial Program Validation. Version 

0.90, 2006. 

Draft 

http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachments/GSA_DOCUMENT/GSA_BIM_02_Main_v09_R2C-a3-

l_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf

Accessed on 5 January 2007 

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) 

http://www.wbdg.org

Accessed on 9 February 2007 
88 

7.5 APPENDIX E – Organizations that Promote Interoperability 

AIA – American Institute of Architects 

http://www.aia.org

http://www.aia.org/IP

http://www.aia.org/TAP

http://www.building-connections.info

AISC - American Institute of Steel Construction 

http://www.aisc.org 

BLIS - Building Lifecycle Interoperable Software 

http://www.blis-project.org 

Building Connections 

www.building-connections.info

CABA - Continental Automated Buildings Association 

http://www.caba.org 

CURT - Construction Users Roundtable 

http://www.curt.org/

FIATECH 

http://www.fiatech.org 

gbXML - Green Building XML 

http://www.gbxml.org 

IAI - International Alliance for Interoperability 

http://www.iai-na.org 

ICF – International Centre for Facilities 

http://www.icf-cebe.com

IFMA - International Facility Management Association 

http://www.ifma.org 

MIMOSA - Machinery Information Management Open Systems Alliance 

http://www.mimosa.org 

NBIMS - National BIM Standard 

http://www.nbims.org 

NFRC - National Fenestration Rating Council 

http://www.nfrc.org 
89 

NIBS - National Institute of Building Sciences 

http://www.nibs.org 

NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology 

http://cic.nist.gov 

OGC - Open Geospatial Consortium 

http://www.opengeospatial.org

OSCRE - Open Standards Consortium for Real Estate 

http://www.oscre.org 

PISCES - Property Information Systems Common Exchange Standard Limited 

http://www.pisces.co.uk 

SABLE - Simple Access to Building Lifecycle Exchange 

http://www.blis-project.org/~sable/