Easily add values of certain cells meeting certain cirteria.
Show me more...
You can utilize a number of reliable resources to learn how to use Microsoft Project efficiently. Here are several possibilities:
Tekla TBP Package extracting is easy using this workflow
An exhaustive research was done to find the 35 case studies that served us as a basis to analyze the influence of BIM in real life construction projects.
Table 4.4 Case Study Count per Country
|
||
Country
|
Number of Case Study Projects
|
Percentage
|
USA
|
18
|
51,43%
|
UK
|
8
|
22,86%
|
France
|
2
|
5,71%
|
Canada
|
2
|
5,71%
|
Israel
|
2
|
5,71%
|
Germany
|
1
|
2,86%
|
China
|
1
|
2,86%
|
Middle East
|
1
|
2,86%
|
Total
|
35
|
100%
|
Table 4.5 Benefits of BIM for PM in the case studies
|
||
A priori benefit (after Allison, 2010)
|
Benefits in case study literature?
|
Example
|
Organize the project schedule
and budget
|
Yes
|
project management
team used 4D models to discover several conflicts in the schedule which were
not discovered in the CPM-based Gantt chart (Haymaker and Fischer, 2001)
|
Work well with the Design Team
|
Yes
|
The design team was
also able to share some information to help facilitate coordination. (
McGraw-Hill, 2010a)
|
Hiring and controlling the
Subcontractors
|
Yes
|
Subcontractors were
more knowledgeable about the project as they have been involved sooner and
are resolving issues in the design and detailing stage that would typically
come up in the field. (Khanzode et al. , 2008)
|
RFIs and Change Orders
|
Yes
|
37% reduction in
coordination RFIs and a 32% reduction in coordination change orders
(McGraw-Hill, 2009)
|
Optimize the Owner’s
experience and satisfaction
|
Yes
|
savings of $9M and 6
months to the owner due to the use of the BIM / VDC tools and a collaborative
project delivery approach (Khanzode et al., 2008)
|
Project closeout
|
No
|
The later phases of a
project, such as closeout or operations and maintenance, are not seen as
valuable opportunities for BIM by any users, including owners. (McGraw-Hill,
2009)
|
Profit margin
|
Yes
|
Engineers see BIM
saving time and money. For them the analysis is simple: less problems equals
more profit (…) profitability increased as a result of using BIM.
(McGraw-Hill, 2009)
|
Progressive Owners are
mandating BIM on their projects:
|
Yes
|
Half of owners (48%)
say that BIM’s impact on the overall project outcome is a high benefit (...)
increasingly, contractors are mandating BIM from key trades and owners are
demanding it from entire teams. (McGraw-Hill, 2009)
|
PM Firm Growth
|
Yes
|
Leveraging BIM
capability to win new business was reported as the top internal business
benefit (McGraw-Hill, 2009)
|
As mentioned previously, the Procurement KPI on table 3.1 was replaced by the Software Issues KPI
Table 4.3 Software Issues due to BIM implementation (see
Annex IV)
|
||
Project
|
Software Issue
|
Source
|
Walt Disney Concert Hall
|
Inconsistencies and lack of data on
the 3D model
|
Haymaker and Fischer, 2001
|
Eagle Ridge
|
Technical difficulties
were encountered that made it necessary to make ‘manual’ adjustments to the
drawings produced automatically
|
Kaner et al., 2008
|
Expeditionary Hospital
|
Information Transfer Bottlenecks
|
Manning and Messner, 2008
|
Lack of Parametric Content
|
||
Unfamiliarity of BIM’s breadth of ability and
associated experience of application in programming
|
||
Precast Shelter
|
modelling issues that
arose from ignorance of the right modelling practices
|
Kaner et al., 2008
|
Cascadia Center
|
not all the data could be
interchanged
|
McGraw-Hill, 2010b
|
US Food
and Drug Administration Headquarters
|
large projects pushed the limit of the software
|
McGraw-Hill, 2010b
|
Several case studies were collected from existing literature to analyze in which areas the application of BIM had improved aspects of the projects studied.
The use of BIM helped clarify project Scope to some or all stakeholders involved in at least 3 of the case studies.
The amount of positive mentions of the implementation of BIM on negative risk reduction or control reached 8, with 17.14% of the projects having more positive mentions than negative ones (Table 4.2). Some construction companies saw “BIM as a way to drive the risk out of its bid” (Texas A&M Health Science Center – McGraw-Hill, 2009) and for others BIM reduced risk by allowing “better informed decisions” (US Food and Drug Administration Headquarters – McGraw-Hill, 2010b).
The negative risk perception on BIM came from the need of “upfront investment for the modelling of the project to win the bid” (Texas A&M Health Science Center – McGraw-Hill, 2009) that could have not been recovered should the company have lost the bid or the need to clarify certain “model ownership issues for liability reasons” (Research 2 – McGraw-Hill, 2009). These negative perceptions could be eliminated or reduced if BIM became mainstream in AEC projects.