iwmsnews |
| TRIRIGA Insights: Severe weather events increase the need to manage carbon emissions Posted: 19 Aug 2010 02:47 PM PDT
"Global warming is undeniable" Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published the annual State of the Climate Report summarizing the key climate indicators of 2009. The report, compiled by 300 scientists from 48 countries, concludes that "global warming is undeniable". Not only was the past decade the warmest on record, but almost every climate indicator shows that climate change is occurring at a more dramatic pace than was predicted by scientists just a few years ago.
How does this affect your organization? Read this week's TRIRIGA Insights to learn why the increase in the frequency and intensity of weather events will drive the need to manage and measure carbon emissions. Related Posts
|
| Debate: Should BIM Be Ingested Into IWMS Posted: 19 Aug 2010 05:45 AM PDT
I recently ran across a wonderful post of Horatio McDowney on BIM and IWMS. McDowney's post is a must-read for IWMS professionals. You will find his post below, however I would love to hear your opinion regarding ingestion of BIM into IWMS. Therefore, today's debate is: Should BIM Be Ingested Into IWMS?You can use the comment field below this article to submit your comments. *** You can read the original post on: http://javaknight.yolasite.com/javaknight-insight/should-bim-be-ingested-into-iwms Ice cream you scream, we all scream for ice scream. Do you like ice cream? You probably do in some flavor, but did you know that sweet easy to eat ice cream is hard for the body to digest? Why? Because, according to some, it is essentially all fat. What does this have to do with BIM? BIM is probably the “fattest” or richest spatial data modeling that has come about as yet. Since BIM objects can house perhaps 20 to 40 of attributes and properties each, not to mention the parametric relationships that are stored in the data model, in addition to the project or file information, drawings, sheets, cuts, schedules, and other database information — BIM, as a technology. . . well just a BIM file can be big. But you probably already know this. BIM IntegrationWhat is not as known is that IWMS vendors are creating systems that ingest BIM: Tririga touts their ability to do it, Archibus says that they have been doing it for years (no comment), FM:Systems has a Revit Overlay that will extricate certain types of data out of the BIM into their tool, Manhattan Centerstone (as of this writing) just mentioned that their next version would include the ability to ingest a BIM. Yes, these vendors allow you to eat the ice cream, and soon we will all be screaming for this ability. But is there a down side to this sugary sweetness. Let’s talk about Manhattan’s proposed abilities just a bit. The plan is for them to:
What’s wrong with this type of integration? Well nothing. . . and everything. Consider this: The BIM model from Revit is being ingested into a package that needs it to be processed before it can be used. What happens to the BIM while all of this processing is going on? For most users – nothing. For some users, everything. Depending on how large your realty portfolio is, the size of your facilities, and the activity in those buildings, the BIM that is being ingested can literally be old news before it makes it into the system. For instance, while I worked at the GSA many of the persons responsible for tenant accounts wondered why their tenants building rentable/usable factor changed frequently when the building was essentially the same footprint. The reason: Rentable/Usable is not based on the footprint of the building – it is based on the relationship between the usable and common spaces inside of the building, which federal agencies change frequently. What makes this particular issue worse is that just a decimal change in the usable area of a tenant will change the rentable/usable factor for all of the tenants in the building, using the BOMA system for measurement. The point: ingested BIM will only give you a snapshot of the tenant area hence a snapshot of the bill. It can be orchestrated really well with good business practices, but it is not real time enough for me to say it’s really integration. More like import/export. VersioningAnother thing — the system is not simply importing the BIM it is getting a whole digestive process in line for a specific version of “BIM” in a specific format. A problem? Well think about it: What version of Revit will Manhattan’s tool support? What version is being released? Every release cycle will require a new release of the ingesting software. Soon a window of supported versions is created (ie. We support everything from 2010 to 20XX, nothing older than that.) Does that present a problem? Not for most of the population, but for the population that I am dealing with, I can almost guarantee it. This solution does not allow widespread BIM usage in facilities and maintenance management, just usage of a specific type of BIM — Revit. Is Revit the best package for this? Maybe from Manhattan’s business perspective, but what about the rest of the industry? (Not that Manhattan is responsible for the rest of us anyway.) SubsetsCan ingesting an IFC format file solve the problem? Understand this: IFC is a flat file designed for transmission of some data. Trying to get a whole BIM with all of the data features mentioned above to transfer from one place to another is like attempting to send an air handler unit through a mailbox. (No offense to buildingSmart.) IFC is to BIM what DXF was to DWG, it is a subset. (Don’t believe me? Take a complex BIM, save it to IFC and open it again in the same software package you saved it from. Notice any differences? This has been documented by radicals and the supporters.) IFC does not allow a BIM to be ingested or truly interoperable. What is needed? Unfortunately, the industry is not really ready to support BIM in a fluid and truly interoperable environment. Very interesting things have been done with (real) database BIMs, like Tekla and Onuma among the many. BIM and IWMS VendorsThe Army Corps of Engineer’s COBie and COBie2 initiative have been instrumental in enabling BIM data to be used in a maintenance context. However, I’m afraid that what the IWMS vendors are doing seems to be the shortest route to usable BIM information on the facilities and maintenance end of matters. This primarily serves their own interests, and may hurt the industry more than it helps. Why? Because the industry needs better solutions to the interoperability problem, starting in the planning phase of the facility lifecycle. The vendors are helping themselves (as we would expect them to.) People may begin to think that the interoperability problem is solved. It isn’t. The solution could be an interim BIM format. A simplified, database driven, queriable (with SQL or some simple language) BIM format that all of the players must comply with, stays in sync with the original model, and allows the user to have all of the complexity they need in the model. The Onuma system comes close to this, and indeed allows one to access the BIM with web services to traditional applications. BIM is just too much for us to ingest. As with ice-cream if you are going to ingest it, be careful. Some may have a compelling need to ingest it. But our expectations should be realistic for the long term. BIM may do better remaining in environments that it is intended to be managed and manipulated. We need an interoperability solution that allows that. *** You can read the original post on: http://javaknight.yolasite.com/javaknight-insight/should-bim-be-ingested-into-iwms Related Posts
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from IWMSnews.com To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment