Australia and New Zealand

BIM Report 2019

The industry update
We are very grateful to the article authors for taking the time to contribute to this report. With special thanks to Digital Node.
Introduction 03
Richard Waterhouse, CEO, NBS and Lincoln Easton, Australia Country Manager, NBS Introduction
A summary of the current BIM and digital engineering practices and policies 05
in Australia and New Zealand. I am delighted to introduce the first NBS BIM report for Australia and New Zealand. We have
Rebecca De Cicco, Founder and Director, Digital Node conducted or supported similar studies in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Having launched
our new specification tool, NBS Chorus, in Australia this year, we felt that the time was right to
digital-node.com @Digital_Node explore use and attitudes to BIM in Australia and New Zealand.
BIM in New Zealand 11
Melanie Tristram, Digital Delivery Lead and Associate Principal, Jasmax
The interest in BIM and the appetite for digital
and BIM Acceleration Committee member
transformation in construction are growing
How BIM is driving innovation in the construction industry 15 globally, and this survey demonstrates real
thought leadership within Australia and New
Rodd Perey, Design Technology Director, Architectus
Zealand. People and organizations understand
Driving BIM adoption in Australia 19 the process improvements, and are realizing
the potential of BIM to enhance the delivery
Andrew Curthoys, Director with Queensland’s DSDIP Richard Waterhouse of buildings and infrastructure.
and chair of the Australasian BIM Advisory Board
CEO, NBS
Tim Mumford, Senior Project Manager, The Office of Projects Victoria (OPV) The results of the survey are impressive. Built
Simon Vaux, Director, Digital Engineering Infrastructure & Place, Transport for NSW environment professionals in Australia and New
Zealand are adopting BIM: our survey indicates
Australia and New Zealand BIM Survey 2019 findings 25 that 80% have done so. This is actually higher
David Bain, Research Manager, NBS than in the UK: sometimes seen as one of the
leading countries for the deployment of BIM,
How BIM has changed my practice: BIM and its impact on architects 45 and a country with a strong BIM mandate. Clearly,
Stewart Caldwell, Director, Russell and Yelland Architects the development of BIM in Australia and New
Zealand is being driven by more than just the
BIM – The importance of being constructible 51 ‘top-down’ approach. Despite the lack of national
Ken Lee, Group BIM Manager, Robert Bird Group BIM mandates, there is commitment across the
region for change, and a capable and innovative
industry willing to deliver.
A history of Uniclass 2015 55
John Gelder, University of South Australia
Among those not yet adopting BIM, many plan
to do so, and recognize the benefits of cost
efficiencies and increased speed of delivery which
open the door to work in new sectors or countries,
We would like to thank the following organizations for supporting this report by circulating the survey on our behalf: and operation and maintenance savings for asset
owners. While some (incorrectly) mainly focus on
the use of 3D modelling tools, many are clear that
The BIM communities in Australia and New Zealand are alive and forging ahead. We see examples
of consultants, contractors and clients adopting and promoting the use of BIM and digital ways
of working. We share some of these in this report.
The Queensland Government has committed
to using BIM on projects costing over $50m,
with some projects having already applied BIM
principles. The Victorian Digital Asset Strategy
(VDAS) is a whole government approach to
using BIM and digital engineering to help
deliver effective assets for the long term. And
Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW)’s digital
Lincoln Easton engineering strategy has been implemented
Australia Country on key infrastructure projects, with the intention
Manager, NBS of rolling out its framework across New South
Wales’ transport infrastructure. In New Zealand,
the BIM Acceleration Committee (BAC) alliance
of industry and government representatives
is driving the use of BIM forward.
In her piece in this report, Rebecca De Cicco
describes the region as being at a turning
RIBA Enterprises Ltd © 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced or shared in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, point, where these various initiatives have
including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. helped to drive interest and adoption in BIM.
The content of articles contributed by external authors and published in this report are the views of those authors and do not represent the position of
RIBA Enterprises Ltd, NBS or its affiliated companies.
2 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
BIM is a data-driven process that applies to all
stages of design, construction and use, and
one that requires the engagement of the whole
project team. This includes manufacturers
(73% of respondents tell us that they need
manufacturer BIM objects).
The survey highlights how BIM (like many
new processes and technologies) can become
unnecessarily complicated. There are differences
in how people see BIM and digital engineering,
but there is a strong desire for consistency and
standardization. Some see a federal mandate as
a means of achieving consistency, while others
focus on standards that everyone can adopt,
citing a need for National Annexes of the new
ISO 19650 series. The use of ISO 19650, PAS 1192,
BS 1192 and Uniclass 2015 show that the move
to standardization is underway. This will lead
to further efficiencies across the industry.
For nearly 50 years, NBS has been promoting and
developing tools that support the management
of information using structured data, consistent
standards and open and collaborative working.
We’re at the start of our journey in Australia,
and we are looking forward to working with the
built environment community there to use our
connected data platforms to support further
growth and efficiencies.
There is a sense of momentum, which needs to
be capitalized on with a period of consolidation,
where BIM principles are used in a consistent way.
Our survey shows that some want to see this
consistency coordinated at a national level, perhaps
applying ISO 19650 across the region. Almost two
thirds (61%) would like to see a federal mandate.
Lack of in-house expertise and training are major
barriers to BIM adoption. New standards, policies
and tools are essential to enable BIM, but these
need to be learned and understood by
professionals in order for them to be applied
properly and consistently. NBS products are one
such set of tools, and we aim to support the
further adoption of BIM and digital transformation
in Australia through their use, as well as sharing
our own knowledge and experience. I hope you
enjoy reading this report, and I look forward to
working with you.
The industry update 3
 A summary of the current
BIM and digital engineering
practices and policies in
Rebecca De Cicco
Founder and Director,
Australia and New Zealand
Digital Node A summary of BIM and DE in Australia and New Zealand:
A synopsis of the current state, implementation and use of BIM and digital engineering
in Australia and New Zealand, and their impacts on the wider construction industry landscape.

As global building information modelling
(BIM) adoption becomes the norm within
the workflow of construction professionals,
it’s important to understand why BIM is
essential to the development of the
construction industry in Australia and
New Zealand, and how and where the
pockets of excellence reside.
A crucial turning point
There is a major market drive for the
adoption of BIM and digital engineering in
general across Australia and New Zealand –
not only due to the forthcoming strategic
guidance delivered by a variety of State
government initiatives but also due to the
fact that, as a region, we are well versed in
BIM technologies and processes. What we
lack in this region is the consolidation of the
consistent approach, all due to the fact that
we have had little to no guidance when it
comes to BIM adoption in this sector.
As BIM and digital engineering have become
the primary considerations for project teams
globally, the Australian and New Zealand
market is rapidly beginning to understand
this impact, and we are seeing a greater
need for the consolidation of processes
across both public and private sector
initiatives. This has been the case for the
last few years, and continues to evolve as
state government (as well as private sector
clients) begin to understand the impacts
of digital across the built environment.
We’re at a crucial turning point at
present in Australia and New Zealand,
as the principles of digital adoption
(as well as the strategic guidance
developed) are now available, and there
is therefore much to be excited about.
The Australian and New Zealand
Governments have been looking to the
UK, where we have seen much in terms
of detailed justification when it comes
to government BIM implementation.

What we lack in this region is the consolidation

of the consistent approach, all due to the fact that
we have had little to no guidance when it comes
to BIM adoption in this sector.

4 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 5
Government mandate: A driver to
innovation and productivity in the UK
In a report from March 2016 led by the
Cabinet Office, UK BIM supported the
delivery of £3bn in capital project delivery
savings, leading to the Government actively
implementing BIM on a ‘business as usual’
basis. Now, and over the coming years,
we continue to see benefits from the UK,
proving that the policy implemented has
been successfully delivered. The UK BIM
mandate has been a driver to construction
innovation and productivity since the
release of the Government Construction
Strategy in 2011, and continues to be a
driving force and justification for other
regions of the world looking to implement
policies relating to BIM and digital
engineering. Industry standards designed
to enable a consistent approach and delivery
of a BIM project were created and developed
to support industry. Even templates and
guidelines were delivered to enable the
UK Government to adopt its BIM mandate
of using fully collaborative 3D BIM on all
centrally procured projects, and to apply
this method across the portfolio of assets
owned and managed by the Government.
The use of these British Standards
developed for BIM across Australia and
New Zealand has been a strong indication
that the UK policy, standards and approach
to BIM and digital engineering are a success
in the UK– driving innovation and export for
the UK economy. It was also a way for this
region of the world to develop skills in line
with best practice methodologies. This is in
part due to the development of these
standards in the UK, but also due the fact
that we in Australia/ New Zealand required
a tested framework to deliver on, led by
example in order to enforce consistency
across a disjointed industry.
6 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
Consolidating an approach
More recently, this has proved successful as
the release of the International Standard ISO
19650 has allowed industry to be up to
speed with UK-tested methodologies. The
ISO is heavily based on the UK BIM
methodologies, and therefore with its
release brings forward many opportunities
to those parties in Australia and New
Zealand who have already looked to adopt
the framework governed by UK Standards
such as PAS 1192-2 and -3. Those who have
begun to implement the framework
developed within these UK standards across
their projects will see benefits, as this
framework had a strong influence on the
newly released ISO 19650-1 and -2.
The construction industry in Australia is just
over a third of the size of that in the UK,
employing approximately 1.1 million people.
In New Zealand, the industry is again much
smaller, and therefore the opportunity to
implement a consolidated solution is
enormous. It would stand to reason that we
could use the lessons from the UK to
implement a similar policy across these
nations. However, we have issues with our
jurisdiction, and passing mandates federally,
which has caused a series of independent
state government strategic initiatives to be
developed. Although there are varied
initiatives, the principles set out are aligning
to the International Standard ISO 19650, so
there are now opportunities to consolidate
the approach toward BIM and digital
engineering across Australia and New
Zealand.
There must be a more extensive adoption of
BIM and digital engineering across Australia,
which will address some of the other
policies already in place across the world to
support productivity. This could present a
huge opportunity for this area of the world,
and although we have come a long way in
the last few years, there is still much more
work to do. Another concern for Australia
and New Zealand’s adoption of BIM is the
industry’s lack of appreciation of the value of
training and education – things which are
sorely needed in order to achieve a
successful adoption of BIM and meet the
needs of a growing population, against a
backdrop of inconsistency. Training should
not only focus on the technology, but also
the implementation of the standards, and a
common approach toward information
management and project delivery.
We have started to see some strong
initiatives come out of Australia and New
Zealand, however, which are hopefully a sign
of things to come in the future. This is
promising for industry as there are now a
number of opportunities present across this
region to support the application of ISO
19650, as well as other UK BIM initiatives
such as Uniclass 2015.
Below: The Digital Engineering Framework Interim Approach:
image courtesy of www.transport.nsw.gov.au/digital-engineering
Government BIM strategy in Australia
Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW),
for example, has been implementing digital
engineering rapidly in its digital engineering
framework, and creating an opportunity
for the infrastructure sector in NSW. In
September 2018, TfNSW produced a digital
engineering strategy, which has been rolled
out in a number of key infrastructure and
pilot projects over two key releases of
documentation. It has procured resources
from industry to help it initiate this strategy,
and hopes to roll out the framework across
the transport cluster. There is also a quite
promising application of education and
training, both supporting the strategy but
also aiming to upskill government and
industry in this approach.
TfNSW has recognized digital engineering
as a key part of enabling its commitment
to implementing best practice data and
information management. Using the
strategy, it has been able to structure data
more consistently so that it can be readily
used by stakeholders to make informed
management decisions.
TfNSW has also been instrumental in The VDAS aims to implement BIM and
adopting the principles of PAS1192-2 and digital engineering in line with ISO 19650,
subsequently ISO 19650, as well as applying and therefore again presents a huge
the UK classification system Uniclass 2015 opportunity to the construction sector in
across the transport asset management Victoria to keep up to speed with NSW
solution. This is promising, and the group government initiatives. We have also more
is well underway in its implementation of recently seen the release of a BIM policy
these policies, and the documentation for the Queensland Government across all
and the technologies to drive digital departments. Again, although not yet
across this sector. implemented, this is now driving the
industry with an urgency not present
Similarly, the Victorian Government released 12 months ago.
a digital asset strategy (VDAS) to aid the
adoption of BIM, aiming to improve the
value and utilization of both physical and
digital assets. Whilst this is not quite a
mandate, the strategy is tailored to the
UK’s BIM Level 2 – and it does lay the
foundations for a clear system and
templates to standardize how BIM and
digital are to be implemented across
government. The document itself is 50
pages long, and sets out a timeline for
the creation and release of more detailed
templates and technical guidance for
industry to adopt and follow.
The industry update 7

Progress in New Zealand
Meanwhile, in New Zealand, we’ve seen
the inception of the BIM Acceleration
Committee (BAC) since 2014 – a nationwide
alliance of industry and government aiming
to coordinate efforts to increase the use
of BIM in the country, and attempting to
use BIM Maturity Level 2 as a framework
for adoption – relying heavily on documents
created in the UK. We’re seeing a trend
that many countries are looking to the UK
for support and guidance regarding the
processes around BIM maturity, and the
standards supporting BIM Level 2,
including the creation of ISO 19650.
In New Zealand, not only has there been
a much more consolidated approach
across industry, but the creation of industry
groups such as BIMinNZ has seen industry
documents being released and updated
regularly to keep up to speed with local
and International Standards.
The interest and ambition for BIM adoption
is certainly more palpable in New Zealand’s
small-but-agile market. The Government
may not have adopted BIM to the same
level as the UK yet, but both industry
and the Government are keen to see
accelerated adoption.
8 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
The BAC developed a website for
the BIMinNZ group to support a
framework for adoption – again, relying
heavily on the documents created in
the UK. One of the first documents
created was the NZ BIM Handbook.
This was initially developed by NATSPEC
in Australia in 2013. However, following
an industry review, it was revised by
industry before being published in 2014.
It was updated once more in 2016 to
highlight the benefits of BIM to all
industry. More recently, the BIM
Handbook was further updated to
reflect the release of the International
standard ISO 19650.
The website now hosts a plethora
of information, including case studies,
BIM tools, education, training and
opinion pieces to promote BIM –
all with the aim of improving
‘New Zealand for all through safer,
healthier and more affordable homes
and buildings’.
Left: The BIM in NZ initiative’s inaugural
conference was hosted in 2019 to support
BIM and digital engineering implementation
in New Zealand.
Concluding thoughts
Adequate BIM training is imperative for
the success of any BIM adoption plan,
and the hitherto inconsistent use of
standards and terminology has proven
detrimental to progress. However, as
both Australia and New Zealand are now
well on their way in terms of BIM and
digital engineering adoption, there is
much to be excited about in this region
of the world.
The continued push from government
and the private sector in Australia and
New Zealand has certainly produced
greater uptake of BIM, and digital
engineering principles and methodologies,
in these regions. With the drive from
industry toward innovation, it’s fair to
conclude that New Zealand and Australia
are certainly on the right path. The
challenges they face are similar to those
of most regions, and while progress to
date is good, there is always more to do.
The way in which the policies discussed
will drive innovation, skills and the use of
technology will be a game changer for
industry in this region, and will continue
to drive the development of the skills we
need to support industry. I look forward
to the future of digital in the construction
industry in Australia and New Zealand,
and I hope to see development, an
uptake in implementation and rapidly
increasing skills in this area.
The industry update 9
 BIM in New Zealand
Melanie Tristram from design practice Jasmax, and the BIM Acceleration Committee,
provides a summary of initiatives in New Zealand that are improving the performance
of New Zealand's building, construction and asset operation sectors.

The successful adoption of BIM within

the New Zealand design and construct
Melanie Tristram sectors is continuing to grow. We are
seeing an increase in clients investigating,
Digital Delivery Lead
or adopting, the use of BIM principles
and Associate Principal, on projects. This is either through the
Jasmax and integration of digital asset information,
BIM Acceleration or purely from an efficiency perspective
Committee member through the design and construct phases.

Government support for BIM adoption

While the New Zealand Government
has not opted for a BIM mandate in the
way that the UK Government has, they
are certainly keen, and are actively
contributing to the accelerated adoption
of BIM principles and methodologies.
In 2014, the Ministry of Business Innovation
and Employment, along with BRANZ,
formed the BIM Acceleration Committee
(BAC). The BIM Acceleration Committee
members are drawn from across the building
and construction industry, representing
consultants, contractors, asset owners/
operators and government. The primary
role of BAC is to promote the application
of BIM, by both actively promoting its
use and removing barriers to its use.
Well into its sixth year of operating, BAC
has provided governance and support
of many initiatives around the promotion
of BIM within New Zealand, such as: Above: Adapted from Figure 8, 'The Information Delivery Cycle', from the New Zealand BIM Handbook version 3

• The New Zealand BIM Handbook

(see below).
• BIMinNZ Conference. A one-day
conference by industry for industry
on building information modelling,
successfully delivered in May 2019.
Presenters, both local and international,
showcased examples of where BIM
sits in the whole life of a built asset.
The conference was well received by
the AECO industry; watch this space
for what comes next.
• BIMinNZ Website (www.biminnz.co.nz)
hosts a plethora of resources, such
as regional case studies showcasing
many aspects of BIM implementation
on projects throughout an asset’s life
cycle, to increase the use of BIM across
New Zealand.
New Zealand BIM Handbook
Originally written and released in 2014, the
New Zealand BIM Handbook was developed
as a guiding document for the adoption of
BIM in New Zealand, delivering a common
language for all to use.
The third version of the New Zealand
BIM Handbook was released in May 2019.
The updates within the handbook are
reflective of the growth in maturity of
BIM within the New Zealand region. No
longer seen as only providing benefits
during the design and documentation
phases of a project, but extending
throughout construction and into
operation, the third iteration has
incorporated important guidance on
the development of client information
requirements and how they underpin
the successful delivery of a BIM project.
As clients become aware of the benefits of
applying BIM principles and methodologies
to their projects (such as reduced risk and
efficiency gain through design, construction
and operation of built assets), the attention
to detail required on how to request BIM for a
project is evident throughout the handbook.
The New Zealand BIM Handbook has
continued to reference International
Standards, such as ISO 19650, to support
(rather than replace) the already familiar
workflows that align to project delivery
within New Zealand. This is evident in Figure
8, The Information Delivery Cycle within the
Handbook; this diagram, based on
PAS1192-2:2013, has been modified to suit
the New Zealand Market steps through a
typical BIM workflow, with the required
inputs and outputs, by whom and when,
throughout each delivery stage.

10 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 11

New Zealand's collaborative BIM community
The New Zealand BIM community is
collaborative by the nature of its size and
the relationships within it, all with the
same endgame in mind – to improve the
performance of the building, construction
and asset operation sectors. New Zealand
has three main regional BIM networking
groups: Auckland, Wellington and
Christchurch, all with the aim of sharing
thoughts, knowledge and information
around BIM principles across the life cycle
of a project. The events, like many others
found in Australia and elsewhere in the
world, have the focus of providing a
collaborative environment where likeminded
individuals are able to share their learnings
through the implementation of BIM on
projects – from procurement, design and
construction through to operation.
12 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
It is these relationships, formed within
the tightknit BIM community, that provide
platforms for collaboration and innovation
at a project level to thrive, as each party
can observe the benefit to them and their
projects. This is evident in many of the
case studies published, and the projects
showcased at regional conferences and
user groups.
Our collaborative nature extends outside
of the realms of user groups and projects,
from the shores of New Zealand across
to neighbouring Australia, through the
development of best practice guidelines:
the most notable and recent being the
Australian and New Zealand BIM Best
Practice Guidelines (a collaborative effort
between AIQS and NZIQS), and the input
provided for the (yet to be released)
Australian and New Zealand Annex
of ISO 19650.
NBS Chorus
Intelligent construction
specification in the cloud
Specify smarter with a powerful new platform. Reduce risk
and integrate with your model. Chorus works on any modern
device (including Mac). Monthly pricing available.
Find out more at theNBS.com.au
or book a demo on 1300 263 553
BIM is (not) only for buildings
To date, the industry has provided evidence
that BIM is beneficial to vertical construction
projects, buildings; however, we are now
seeing an emergence of infrastructure
projects – not only with BIM aspirations,
but successful BIM implementation and
delivery being applied. Projects such as
Auckland International Airport, the City
Rail Link, Transpower and the Pukete Waste
Water Treatment Plant prove that, while
New Zealand is a small country, we can
punch above our weight with BIM
implementation efforts.
We may not have reached the holy grail of BIM
yet: where everyone within the supply chain
understands how to successfully ask for BIM,
or is capable of delivering to those requests,
but we believe we are on the right path.
We have a supportive network surrounding
the different areas of the industry, all working
towards the common goal of 'improving the
performance of New Zealand's building,
construction and asset operation sectors,
through the implementation of building
information modelling'.
The industry update 13
 How BIM is driving
innovation in the
construction industry
In late 2002, Architectus CEO Ray Brown saw a presentation on what we would later
Rodd Perey
call building information modelling (BIM). He was impressed with the level of integration,
Design Technology
Director, Architectus and especially the fact that the plumbing fixtures cut their required penetrations
in the slab, so that these were captured in the concrete outline plans.

It so happened that I had been playing
around with Revit at the time (it having
been acquired by Autodesk earlier in the
year), and I reported that Revit could
provide a much more efficient way of
delivering our project documentation.
Shortly afterwards, we commenced a pilot
project, and within a few years Revit had
become our key platform for delivery.
Before long, we reaped the benefit of the
flexibility and efficiency of BIM authoring:
the ability to visualize quickly and easily,
and this was improving our internal
processes. However, it was only when
the 1 Bligh Street project commenced
in 2006 that we had the opportunity to
extend our capabilities across disciplines
and throughout the project life cycle.
The client provided a strong BIM mandate,
and we were appointed as BIM managers.
We created a BIM Execution Plan and
management protocols, and at handover
had a federated model that represented 29
different trades and disciplines. From that
groundbreaking project, we developed the
capabilities that would allow us to launch
our subsidiary company BIM Consulting
(BC). BC provides BIM consultancy, and
support and management services, to the
wider construction and property industries,
as well as research and back-of-house
support to Architectus.
Over this period of 17 years, we have
embedded BIM into all of our processes
and developed strong capabilities,
integrated content, standards and
workflows; we have developed a range
of skillsets and trained generations of staff.
We have participated at the highest level in
industry organizations, and in the great
debates of the field. Yet, at the same time,
we find that we are still working in
a multi-speed world, where some projects
demand the full range of BIM opportunities,
while in (a decreasing share of) other
projects we still need to deliver traditional
document sets, and integrate a range of
non-BIM inputs. Given our commitment
to BIM as a methodology and platform,
we have found ways to derive the greatest
possible value from our model creation,
regardless of the depth of the BIM
requirements on the project.
Now, Architectus’ focus on BIM has
turned to how we can use it to facilitate
collaboration, increase coordination
and lower risk.
On one recent project, the developer
came to us with a novel proposition: a single
outsourced firm would have responsibility
for the majority of BIM authoring. They
would be engaged directly by the developer,
while the consultants and subcontractors
would be selected for professional
expertise, unconstrained by BIM capability.
Responsibility for quality and completeness
of BIMs – and adherence to individual
company standards and general project
requirements – would be in the hands of
the outsourced firm. Autodesk’s BIM360
collaboration platform, hosted in the cloud,
allows full engagement with the models
by all parties. This is a true Level 3 BIM
environment: with permanently linked trade
and discipline models on a web server, and
defined data and information capture for
uses such as cost estimating, construction
sequencing, facilities management and
integration of Internet of Things (IoT)
elements. While we would still be actively
engaged within the models, the consultant
team focus was more concentrated
on design and project management,
rather than model creation.

Given our commitment to BIM as a methodology

and platform, we have found ways to derive the greatest
possible value from our model creation, regardless of the depth
of the BIM requirements on the project.

14 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 15
 Left: BIM maturity chart. Adapted from Left: Coordinated model and
National Guidelines for Digital Modelling, CRC for specification from an Architectus
Construction Innovation, 2009. Retrieved from project.
http://www.construction-innovation.info/images/
pdfs/BIM_Guidelines_Book_191109_lores.pdf.

Copyright 2009 Australian Institute of Architects.

This approach has had a number of
interesting ramifications. One is the tight
integration of the various models, to the
point that the models can be relied upon
to produce documentation with elements
from different disciplines. While it is standard
Australian documentation practice that
horizontal set-out of structural elements
is produced by the architect, we have
been able in this case to dimension to the
structural model. Furthermore, architectural
aspects that are part of the structure (such
as slab set-downs and hobs) are created
in the structural model, and documented
in the architectural drawing set. On all
previous projects, we had to model
structural elements separately because
we were unable to have our documentation
reliant on the outputs of another firm to this
degree. The same applies to fire hydrants
and hose reels, electrical panels, mechanical
systems and stackwork, and a host of other
elements, the spatial requirements and
positioning of which have a clear impact
on the code compliance and design
aspects that we are responsible for.
With all disciplines, consultants and
subcontractors in context within the model,
in their original authoring environment,
there is no need for publishing and
federation timelines and activities for the
process of design development. We can
develop the design in the context of all
other disciplines and avoid clashes, rather
than detect them later on. With single point
responsibility for maintaining links, we can
ensure that the model information from
other parties is up-to-date and complete,
as far as is known. The significant overhead
of keeping everything in working order is
handled by the outsourced modellers,
and is unaffected by project deadlines
and resource limitations amongst the
parties. These aspects provide us with
reliable models that represent all aspects
of the design and are up-to-date. This is
the establishment of the single point
of truth: where the model becomes the
definitive source of information, and
published documentation rarely needs
to be looked at.
With modelling responsibilities largely
being performed by the outsourced team,
we have initiated procedures to ensure
that design quality and compliance are
always maintained. This has turned our
attention to how we deal with our own
production teams internally. Deadline
pressure is always considerable, so we
have created methods to allow continuous
review of our designs and documents
to manage the associated risks.
Some of these techniques are quite simple
and low-tech, and we have lowered our
cost and time overheads by incorporating
them into our project templates. We don’t
tend to use general working views, but
specific views which highlight compliance
issues that need to be continuously
managed throughout the life of the project.
Fire compartmentation, doors, acoustics,
thermal performance and accessibility
issues all need to be continuously
monitored, and we use the power of
BIM to report and display information
that draws from the intrinsic characteristics
of the selected object to represent system
performance in ways that can be grasped
quickly and easily. We have created
complex parametric content that, for
instance, measures door clearances for
accessibility and indicates non-compliant
situations, and can be clash reported against
both architectural elements and those
from other disciplines.
We are currently taking this to a new level. Architectus lives by its tagline ‘Explore.
A plug-in developed by BIM Consulting Collaborate. Create’. These are not just
for Architectus, called Mission Control, words, but central to our processes.
monitors Revit activity and model quality, Our deeply embedded BIM culture allows
and writes this information to a database. us to design and deliver optimally. With the
Knowing that many aspects of code insights from recent projects, we are looking
compliance are complex, and not readily to derive further value from our models
turned into a mathematical formula or and continue to improve our efficiency,
geometric condition, we are looking for responsiveness and management of risk.
analogues for risk factors. An example
would be the model being hidden and Discover more about the approach
overwritten with detail elements. The to technology from Architectus at:
potential risks can then be presented for www.architectus.com.au/en/technology
review by experienced personnel. We would
like to compare efficiency and performance
over multiple projects to learn the strengths
and weaknesses of our delivery process,
and where it can be improved.
Another innovation that we are looking
into is integrating specifications within the
model using NBS Chorus. This is a cloud
alternative to using traditional Excel and
Word desktop applications that are
disconnected from the model. Figure 2
shows a recent Architectus project in
Revit with integrated specification,
or a type of ceiling system.

The significant overhead of keeping everything

in working order is handled by the outsourced modellers,
and is unaffected by project deadlines and resource
limitations amongst the parties.

16 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 17
 Driving BIM adoption
in Australia
While there isn’t a federal BIM mandate in Australia, there are government strategies
and policies at state level to encourage its use. Here we feature the approaches in three states:
Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales.

Queensland’s commitment to adopt BIM

Queensland has established itself as a The Queensland BIM Working Group was
national leader in building information then formed to develop the draft policy
modelling following the release of its BIM and principles, in consultation with industry
policy and principles in November 2018. and peak bodies.

The policy came into effect on 1st July,
and commits the Queensland Government
to use BIM on all construction projects
valued over $50 million that have a
commenced detailed business case.
The group has now shifted its focus to
working with industry to address technical
aspects, as well as promoting cultural
change management across government
and industry.

An overarching five-year work plan As the largest infrastructure construction

outlines the implementation framework,
and government agencies are now working
Andrew Curthoys
to use the principles according to their
Director with own frameworks and needs.
Queensland’s DSDIP*
and chair of the Cross River Rail, the new theatre at the
Australasian BIM Queensland Performing Arts Centre and the
Roma Hospital redevelopment have already
Advisory Board
successfully incorporated BIM principles.
client in the state, the Queensland
Government is actively promoting the uptake
of BIM in the construction industry while
driving change within its own agencies.
More information is available at
www.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/infrastructure/
building-information-modelling-bim.html

The policy also commits Queensland to

work collaboratively with industry and other
jurisdictions towards national consistency,
to improve the industry’s experience when
working across state borders.

Queensland’s BIM journey began in 2016,

with the State Infrastructure Plan committing
the Government to progressively implement
* Department of State Development, its use on all major state infrastructure
Infrastructure and Planning projects by 2023.

As the largest infrastructure construction client in the state,

the Queensland Government is actively promoting
the uptake of BIM in the construction industry while driving
change within its own agencies.

18 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 19
 Tim Mumford
Senior Project Manager,
The Office of Projects
Victoria (OPV)
Victorian Digital Asset Strategy
Victoria, as the fastest growing state in
Australia, recognizes the important role
of digital engineering in effectively
delivering world-class assets.
Current information processes in the
architectural, engineering, construction
and operations (AECO) industry are
generally siloed, paper-based,
non-repeatable and rarely integrated
throughout the asset’s life cycle.
Governments from the United Kingdom,
Finland, Norway, Scotland, Singapore,
Denmark, New Zealand, the United States
and the Netherlands have already adopted
methods to create and capture value
from digital engineering.
Learning from these initiatives, alongside
international best practices and standards
like ISO 19650, Office of Projects Victoria
(OPV) and the Victorian Chief Engineer
(OVCE) are developing the Victorian Digital
Asset Strategy (VDAS). VDAS is a whole new
Victorian government approach to digital
engineering (DE) and building information
modelling (BIM) to develop cost-effective,
innovative and value-adding digital assets
for all Victorians for decades to come.
20 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
At the heart of VDAS is the recognition
that asset data and information are
extremely valuable.
The VDAS vision is to create, deliver and
enhance digital assets that inform the
delivery and whole-life management of
world-class, effective and efficient physical
assets across Victoria to the benefit of
current and future Victorians.
The priorities of VDAS are:
• Effective creation and management
of DE data and information, for efficient
and sustainable physical asset creation
and delivery across Victoria.
• Enable and maximize the utilization
of DE data and information.
• Inform and support Victorian government
departments, industry and practitioners
on key aspects of DE.
• Innovate approaches and provide insights
to ensure the efficient and effective
implementation of DE.
• Embrace DE sustainability through
the effective and efficient delivery
and management of major assets
across Victoria.
With support from Victorian government
departments and agencies, VDAS progress
has been swift. The VDAS Strategic
Framework was launched in February 2019.
The VDAS Strategic Framework was
developed in collaboration with industry,
academia and government stakeholders.
The VDAS Strategic Framework aligns
with ISO 19650, as well as relevant Victorian
government acts, policies, frameworks and
norms. For more information about VDAS
Strategic Framework, please refer to
http://www.opv.vic.gov.au/Victorian-Chief-
Engineer/Victorian-Digital-Asset-Strategy.
The VDAS Strategic Framework was followed
by the VDAS Education Map: aimed at a
range of stakeholders looking to upskill
and apply VDAS on major infrastructure
projects and assets.
The Education Map will provide the Victorian
Government’s asset stakeholders with
specific details on the courses, syllabuses
and contact details of DE educators and
providers across the state.
OPV is currently developing the VDAS
Guidance – more detailed information on
the ‘why’, ‘how’, ‘when’ and ‘who’ of DE
and BIM throughout the asset’s life cycle –
contextualized for Victoria. It includes
information about DE management,
information exchange, documentation,
integration, roles and responsibilities,
collaboration, common data environments
and data classification.
The VDAS Guidance will support the VDAS
Strategic Framework, and provide detailed
information to Victorian Government asset
stakeholders about how to implement
DE processes to improve digital asset
and information creation, management
practices, capability and maturity across
Victoria. The VDAS Guidance is expected
to be published in September 2019.
Following VDAS Guidance, the VDAS
Technical Guides and Competency
Framework will be developed.
The VDAS Technical Guides will support
the VDAS Guidance and provide Victorian
government asset stakeholders with
direction to recommended templates, as
well as direction and assistance on creating,
delivering and operating assets with DE
processes. The Competency Framework
aims to provide asset stakeholders across
the Victorian Government with detailed
guidance on skill, qualities, experience and
roles required to deliver the VDAS across
the State.
For more information on VDAS,
see www.opv.vic.gov.au
The industry update 21
 Transport for New South Wales
Transport for NSW (TfNSW) is the
state agency delivering a significant
‘once-in-a-generation’ program of
investment with a budget of approx.
$55bn allocated over the next four years
for infrastructure development and
renewal throughout New South Wales.
TfNSW is leading the transformation of
the construction industry, by developing
the Digital Engineering (DE) Framework.
This comprehensive framework is now live,
building digital capability across industry and
Simon Vaux delivering value to a number of large-scale
Director, infrastructure projects within NSW.
Digital Engineering At TfNSW we view Digital Engineering as
Infrastructure & Place a collaborative way of working using digital
Transport for NSW processes to generate a faster, easier and
more accurate approach to our projects.
By ‘building our assets twice’ first virtually
and then physically, DE has the power to
provide valuable insights and deliver cost
savings across the asset lifecycle.
Advances in DE have historically been led
by industry, however this has occurred in
an ad-hoc manner across the construction
sector. This has limited the benefits and
value achieved, as well as productivity
of the industry as a whole.
Above: The TfNSW DE Framework provides new standards, guidance and capabilities
22 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
The DE Framework now enhances how
we plan, design and deliver our projects,
by defining a more unified, reliable and
reusable approach to DE. This empowers
more data-driven decisions and improved
project outcomes for our organization
and our industry partners.
In 2017 TfNSW formally commenced
this journey of digital transformation,
by approving the Data and Information
Asset Management Policy, which formally
recognises the value of managing data
and information as an asset. In that same
year, TfNSW also approved the business
case for the DE Framework Program.
This program is developing the framework
incrementally based on global best-practice
and to measure subsequent benefits by
testing on a number of pilot projects.
In early 2018 we assembled a full-time
team of industry experts to design how
infrastructure data and information
should be procured and built-up for Above: The DE Framework is being rolled out across key TfNSW projects by team members
reliable exchange and reuse over the
asset lifecycle. This is enabling TfNSW to
become a more effective, data-centric After many months of hard-work, we Throughout 2019, the framework has been For more details on the
organization, driving a step-change in publically launched the first release of the expanded and refined further, with Release TfNSW DE Framework, please visit:
how we deliver infrastructure projects. TfNSW DE Framework in September 2018. 2 published in April, followed by Release 3 www.transport.nsw.gov.au/
Given the incremental delivery of the in October. Many of our key technical and digitalengineering
program, this first release was titled the guidance documents, including from our
‘Interim Approach’ and involved new latest release, are available on our website
digital standards (based on Uniclass 2015), (details right) so be sure to check them out.
business processes, technology and
training. This enabled TfNSW projects Our pilot program is now growing and
to be able to consistently procure and we’re seeing uptake on a variety of rail,
reuse infrastructure data throughout road and precinct development projects.
the asset lifecycle. We’re also seeing increased uptake of
DE Managers, to ensure successful
This launch was coupled with a new implementation of the framework by
website and a number of community both clients and contractors.
events, to engage with both Transport
and industry practitioners. Feedback at the In summary, the DE Framework has been
time was overwhelmingly positive, as we a catalyst for change, and is now setting
presented a new structured methodology our projects and the construction industry
for successful digital collaboration between up for success.
government and industry.
This is an exciting time to be a part of this industry
and with initiatives such as the DE Framework underway,
the future will be bright.
The industry update 23
 Australia and New Zealand
BIM Survey 2019 findings
We have been monitoring the adoption of building information modelling
in the UK for eight years. Working with partners around the world, we have researched
David Bain BIM adoption in Canada, Denmark, Finland and Japan. We were also involved in carrying
Research Manager, NBS out BIM surveys in New Zealand in 2011 and 2013. This year, for the first time, we took the
temperature of BIM in Australia, incorporating views from New Zealand once again too.
Simultaneously, the construction industry (partly enabled by BIM) has begun
to transform as it embraces digital ways of working.

We were aware that BIM and digital
engineering were being pushed forward by
some innovative practices and government
organizations in Australia and New Zealand.
We thought that it would be interesting
to go beyond those examples and survey
the industry to see how widespread this
adoption was, and how this compared with
the UK. So, we carried out our first BIM
survey covering both Australia and New
Zealand earlier this year. We had over 200
responses, and would like to thank all of
those who took the time to provide their
views. We also had considerable support
from a number of organizations and
individuals (acknowledged in the front of
this report) to publicize the survey among
their networks. We are extremely grateful
for this support.
Current knowledge and adoption of BIM
Awareness of BIM is widespread in Australia Some of these talked about the 3D
and New Zealand, with 98% having heard modelling element of this, and the inclusion
of it. Respondents were less familiar (71%) of non-geometrical data. Others highlighted
with the term ‘digital engineering’ (DE), the collaborative ethos. There were also
which is seen by some as synonymous with cases where people saw BIM as a much
BIM, and sometimes used by those working broader concept that encompasses digital
on infrastructure projects. ways of working more generally.
However, less than a third (32%) of
respondents agreed that BIM and DE were
the same thing, whereas 47% disagreed,
and just over a fifth were in the middle.
When asked what BIM means to them, quite
a lot of respondents focused on producing
3D models. However, many saw BIM as
being about good information management
throughout the project timeline.

Before taking this survey had you ever heard of the following?

Almost
everyone who
responded has
heard of BIM

98% 71%
Building Information Digital Engineering
Modelling (BIM) (DE)

24 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 25
BIM as a process
‘ The systematic application of information
standards, controls, systems and processes
from asset inception, through project
design and construction, commissioning
and on-going use, via the medium of
a virtual asset (3D)’.
‘ Intelligent 3D models used to develop,
design, coordinate and manage a digital
representation of a project’.
‘ An intelligent model-centric process
which can deliver potential value across
the entire lifecycle’.
‘ BIM is the process of creating both 3D
geometry (drawings) and information
(data) to describe the scope of a project,
encapsulating all information pertinent
to the design of the project, preferably
in an integrated, federated model in
a common data environment’.
‘ Building Information Modelling (BIM) is the
process of creating and managing a digital
information model of a building, facility
or infrastructure asset. BIM should be
thought of as a virtual prototype, whether
of a building, a site, an infrastructure
system or a city. BIM allows any aspect
of a design’s performance to be simulated
and assessed before it is built. This helps
us to understand the design more
completely and much earlier’.
‘ BIM is a challenging term that has
been used to describe new technologies
and processes to digitally model and
document the built environment’.
Very confident 33%
Quite confident 37%
In between 18%
Not very confident 10%
Not at all confident 2%
26 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
For digital engineering, people provided ‘ Digital Engineering is the process of Sources to turn to for information about BIM
a range of definitions. Some appeared embracing technology, including the BIM
to see it as very similar to, or the same model to facilitate better communications Other professional(s) I know outside my organization 75% 13% 12%
as, BIM. Some also simply described (stakeholder engagement), higher quality
My colleagues 74% 12% 14%
it as '3D modelling’. There were those manufacturing, earlier approvals, more
professionals who described DE as efficient cost control, better control over NBS
55% 15% 19% 11%
interfacing with BIM and the model, programming and more efficient site
or using the model to help design and logistics planning’. BuildingSMART Australasia 55% 12% 16% 16%
construct the building. In other cases,
On a general note, some responses did imply NATSPEC 53% 11% 24% 12%
respondents saw digital engineering
that there is unnecessary jargon in the industry.
as particular to infrastructure, civil A BIM Consultant
50% 21% 26% 3%
engineering or engineering generally. When we group responses by type of
Perhaps the most common description respondent, we see that all design BSI (British Standards Institution) 49% 12% 26% 12%
of DE, though, was the broader use disciplines were aware of BIM. However,
of digital technologies in construction. A software vendor 46% 21% 29% 3%
half of architects had not heard of DE, and
over half of architectural technologists were BuildingSMART International 46% 17% 20% 17%
DE: an umbrella term for a range not aware of it. Awareness of DE is higher
digital technologies Australian/New Zealand Government Departments 40% 15% 36% 8%
among BIM managers and engineers.
‘ As BIM, but incorporating other process No disciplines clearly agree that BIM and
The Australasian BIM Advisory Board (ABAB) 34% 18% 23% 25%
and tech such as GIS and automation of DE are the same thing, which reflects the
design and the production of information’. comments that respondents made. A software reseller 30% 24% 41% 5%
Many of those completing the survey (70%) Australian Institute of Architects 21% 22% 48% 8%
‘ Design, construction and management are confident in their BIM knowledge and
of civil and infrastructure projects in skills, with a third being very confident and Other professional Institutes 21% 31% 26% 22%
a digital environment’. 37% quite confident. We asked about some
Other 18% 44% 38%
of the ways that people find information
‘ The use of digital processes to apply about BIM. Learning from contemporaries is
engineering principles, processes and key, with 75% turning to other professionals
Likely Neither likely nor unlikely
practices to the design, construction, outside their organization, and 74% to their
operations, maintenance or demolition colleagues. We are pleased that over half Unlikely Don’t know about this source
of infrastructure’. (55%) see NBS as a source of information on
BIM. Other providers of technical information
‘ Digital Engineering is a business process and software solutions are also cited by many
that incorporates the use of converging respondents. BuildingSMART’s agenda is to
digital processes and technologies such as drive forward digital transformation in the Adopted BIM or DE?
BIM, VDC, GIS, CDE, VR/AR and a number built environment; it is an important source
of information about BIM, with both According to our survey, adoption of BIM
of other related advanced design and
Australasian and international bodies cited is high: 80% of those aware of BIM or DE
construction technologies, methods and
by many (55% and 46%, respectively). have adopted it. This compares with 73%
processes that come together creating
in the UK. Given that this is the first BIM
the basic framework of the DE toolbox’.
survey we have carried out in Australia,
it’s likely to have gained the attention of
80%
those actively interested in and engaged have adopted
in BIM. However, this is still a high figure, BIM or DE
and suggests that many organizations in
Australia and New Zealand are embracing
BIM. Adoption among respondents in both
Confidence in BIM knowledge and skills
countries is similar: 81% for Australia and
70% 77% for New Zealand. (When we start to
break respondents down into sub-samples,
are confident the numbers become smaller, so we would
in their BIM say that these numbers are indicative
knowledge of the wider population.) For New Zealand, 80% Yes
the latest indicative figure of 77% in this
16% No
survey is in line with a steady growth in
adoption over the past eight years – 4% Don’t know
similar to that seen in the UK.
The industry update 27
 Percentage of projects where respondents used BIM in the past 12 months Of those who had adopted BIM, almost all Which of these project types have you used BIM on?
(99%) had done so on at least 5% of their
projects in the last year. Almost as many, Health 92%
5% 99%
92% 91%, were following BIM ways of working on Mixed use 91%
at least a quarter of their projects. There is a Retail 91%
10% 96% slight, incremental drop-off in the number
Transport 90%
of respondents using BIM for an increasingly
15% 93%
92% larger share of their projects, with a majority Sport and leisure 90%
(51%) reporting that they used BIM for at Education 88%
20% 93%
92% least 90%. Just over a quarter (27%) used Culture and entertainment 88%
BIM for all of their work.
Industrial 87%
25% 91%
92%
BIM was more likely to be used on certain Other public 86%

30% 88%
92% types of projects than others. 90% or more Offices 83%
respondents working in the respective Other private 81%
35% 84%
sectors had used BIM on health projects,
One-off new house, extension, conversion or alteration 78%
mixed-use, retail, transport, and sport and
Other private housing 67%
leisure. BIM was less likely to be used on
40% 82%
residential projects, with only 60% reporting Public housing including social housing 60%
% Projects where BIM used

that they had used it on public housing and

45% 79%
67% on ‘other private housing’.

50% 78%
Attitudes to BIM
55% 75% Many people are telling us that they are used Revit when describing their adoption the technology, with 92% agreeing that
using BIM, but what does that actually of BIM. On the whole, we’re past that now, it’s about the processes. Only 29% equate
60% 73% mean, and how is it affecting the ways with a general awareness that BIM is as using technology like Revit to ‘doing BIM’.
that they work? much about a process of good information The notion that BIM is meant to be used
65% 70% management as it is the adoption of certain throughout the project timeline is also
One misconception that existed for a while types of digital platform. It seems that recognized, with 81% disagreeing that
in the UK was that BIM equated to producing professionals in Australia and New Zealand it’s only used in the design stages.
70% 68%
a 3D model. People spoke about having are aware that it’s about much more than
75% 65%

80% 61%
BIM processes and tasks
85% 54%
True BIM is about the processes involved
92% 7% 2%
not just the technology
90% 51%
We need manufacturers to provide us
73% 15% 13%
95% 37% with BIM objects
Note: This chart shows the percentage of
respondents that have used BIM at each level. Our current contracts are not compatible with BIM
49% 25% 25%
100% 27% So, 99% of respondents have used BIM for 5%
of their projects or more. 84% have used BIM If you use technology such as Revit you
for 35% of their projects or more. 29% 19% 52%
are doing BIM

Unless specifications are linked to the digital model,

25% 23% 52%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% it’s not BIM

Information models only work in the software

18% 15% 67%
% of respondents they were made on

BIM is only used in the design stages

11% 8% 81%

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

90% or more respondents working in the respective

sectors had used BIM on health projects, mixed-use, retail,
transport, and sport and leisure.

28 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 29
Good information management promotes
the use of data formats that allow models
to be used on different platforms. This
appears to be happening in practice, with
two thirds disagreeing that information
models only work in the piece of software
they were created in. And while we
might argue that it’s good practice to link
specifications to the model, just over half
of respondents (52%) state that, even if
you are not doing this, it’s still BIM.
Adopting BIM has required/would require changes
in our workflow, practices or procedures
Experience of BIM
If BIM requires substantial change, why do
it? The survey results show that it benefits
the design practices and other members
of the project team who adopt it, as well
as those who manage the built assets.
The vast majority (87%) of those adopting
BIM believe that it has increased
Adopting BIM has increased/would increase
coordination of construction documents
Adopting BIM has brought/would bring
cost efficiencies
Adopting BIM has increased/would increase
speed of delivery
Adopting BIM has made/would make it easier
for us to work internationally
Adopting BIM has enabled/would enable us
to work in new sectors and types of projects
Adopting BIM has increased/would
increase our profitability
30 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
In this part of the survey, practitioners
highlight some of the tools and resources
that they need to support their adoption
of BIM. Almost three quarters (73%) need
manufacturers to provide them with BIM
objects. They want the availability of
product information in a BIM format to
reflect the range and choice of products
that are available. There are also signs that
contracts need to be updated for BIM, with
almost half (49%) stating that their current
BIM and changes to workflow
95%
80%
Agree - Those adopted BIM
coordination of construction documents,
which should lead to fewer information
conflicts or inaccuracies when models
and specifications are shared with the
Contractor. It therefore follows that many
(63%) believe it has brought cost efficiencies
and that it is has increased speed of delivery
(60%). Some respondents are seeing the
Benefits of BIM
87%
76%
63%
59%
60%
60%
54%
56%
45%
42%
44%
48%
Agree - Those adopted BIM
contracts are not compatible. It is certainly
clear that adopting BIM requires changes in
the workflow, practices and procedures of
construction professionals: almost all of
those using BIM (95%) agree, as do 80%
of those who aren’t using it.
Agree - Those not adopted BIM
positive effect on their bottom line, with
44% stating that it has increased their
profitability. As well as delivering work more
effectively, some organizations are seeing
a positive impact on their ability to extend
their reach – into different countries (54%)
or sectors (45%).
Agree - Those not adopted BIM
Most respondents (79%) also agree that
BIM results in operation and maintenance
savings – making it easier for facilities
management teams and others who
manage assets to do so more effectively.
BIM should mean that the needs of building
and infrastructure users and managers
are considered at the outset, and that
comprehensive information about the
Using BIM results in operation and
maintenance savings
Private clients don’t understand
the benefits of BIM
Those procuring buildings or other assets
for the Australian/New Zealand Government
don’t understand the benefits of BIM
Client understanding of BIM is felt to be
better among the public sector. This is
understandable because, as in the UK,
there are various government policies
and initiatives to encourage BIM adoption.
However, despite this, over half of
respondents (54%) still feel that
understanding is lacking.
‘ For BIM/ DE to continue to make inroads
into the way we deliver and operate our
buildings, it requires our clients/and
prospective purchasers of the properties
to see the value of the digital asset.
This requires clients understanding their
Organizational Information Requirements
(OIR) before the project begins, ensuring
the project can be procured and setup
from the onset appropriately in regards
to these requirements’.
For BIM to progress in this country there needs
to be a federal mandate
The Australian/New Zealand Government
is taking BIM seriously
I think the Australian/New Zealand state
Government is on the right track with BIM
completed asset is made available at
handover. Most of those taking part in
this survey are involved in designing or
constructing built assets, and see the
benefits that BIM can bring. However, they
are unsure of how well clients understand
or recognize these benefits. In particular,
it is not thought that private clients
understand BIM (62%).
Clients and BIM
79% 17% 4%
62% 23% 15%
54% 32% 14%
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
In the UK, and in some other countries, BIM. The New Zealand Government formed
national or federal governments have the BIM Acceleration Committee (BAC),
chosen to ‘mandate’ BIM. In the UK, this which provides support to construction
means that organizations need to commit professionals through initiatives like its
to delivering ‘Level 2’ BIM to win work ‘New Zealand BIM Handbook’. The high
procured by central government. The UK levels of BIM adoption, indicated by this
mandate has been in force since April 2016. survey, suggest that these strategies are
There are different views on how successful having a positive effect; however,
and well enforced it has been; however, respondents appear to expect more from
many agree that it provided a necessary their respective governments. Only 26%
catalyst for consultants and contractors to believe that their government is taking
start on the road to digital transformation, BIM seriously, and the same figure think
with BIM adoption often being the first step. that their state (or regional) government is
on the right track with BIM. Many would like
In Australia and New Zealand, there has a federal mandate (61%).
been a range of initiatives to encourage
BIM adoption at regional or national level.
Several Australian state governments have
digital strategies in place, and there are
examples of publicly funded projects using
Government and BIM
61% 20% 18%
26% 36% 38%
26% 45% 29%
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
The industry update 31

There is a lack of clarity about what BIM means
in Australia/New Zealand
BIM is now the norm for project information
The UK is the leader in BIM
I trust what I hear about BIM
BIM is just for larger organizations
Some feel strongly that a federal mandate
is required, while others do not. However,
many do agree that consistency is needed,
and that more guidance could be provided
by governments to achieve this.
‘ I really hope that Australia simply adopts
the approach taken by the UK. Very
important to do it at a Federal level with
no regional variations. Regional variations
add costs to businesses’.
‘ Mandate, Mandate, Mandate!!!!’
‘ There just need to be consistencies
on how each of us do BIM’.
In addition to the production of digital drawings
and 3D models, many professionals are carrying out tasks
symptomatic of the wholesale adoption of BIM.
32 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
Views on BIM
76%
44% 28%
42% 39%
38% 44%
7% 10% 83%
Agree Neither agree nor disagree
‘ I don't believe in a mandate for BIM as
many companies will [settle] for the
minimum benchmark and it will stifle
innovation. The government legislation
should make manufacturers and suppliers
provide suitable content for the creation of
a library of data and families to have the
building blocks for a coordinated industry’.
‘ Australia shouldn't use the term Digital
Engineering instead of BIM. BIM is an
internationally recognised term in the AEC
industries and Australia shouldn't create
confusion by making up its own term.
Additionally while we don't necessarily
need a mandate in Australia we do need
more guidance from the government than
we've currently been given. For example we
need a national annexure for ISO 19650,
instead of just letting every client and
consultant and contractor make their own
mind up about how to do BIM’.
14% 10%
28%
20%
18%
Disagree
Certainly, survey respondents feel that there
is a lack of clarity about what BIM means:
76% state this, and only 38% trust what
they hear about BIM. Encouragingly, though,
44% believe that BIM is now the norm for
project information, and most (83%) that it
is not just confined to larger organizations.
There is a tentative nod to the UK as the
leader in BIM, perhaps reflecting that it is
among several countries that are setting the
course for BIM. Interestingly, while 42% of
Australian and New Zealand professionals
responding to this survey agree that the UK
is the leader in BIM, fewer respondents to
our UK survey (30%) feel that way.
Standardization and collaboration
We have seen that BIM requires changes in
workflow. It is much more than moving from
2D to 3D design. Working in 3D does go
with the territory, and we see that 86% of
respondents do produce 3D digital models.
Although almost three quarters (71%) still
produce digital drawings in 2D. This may
reflect the fact that most practices do not
use BIM on all projects – or that for some parts
of a design, they still produce some drawings
in 2D – perhaps another consultant or
subcontractor prefers the information in 2D.
Produce 3D digital models
Work collaboratively on design
Share models with design team
members outside your organization
Produce 2D digital drawings
Share models inside your
organization, across disciplines
Use a model from the very start
to the very end of a project
Federate a model that didn’t rely
on one piece of software
Pass on the model to those who are
responsible for the continued management
of the building or other asset
As well as coordinating different models,
good information management is about
coordinating between information and
document types, such as specifications
with drawings and models. Most people
(83%) are doing this, to some extent.
Almost two thirds (66%) are doing so for
the majority of projects, and 31% for all.
So, many professionals are collaborating
on design, sharing models and passing
them to other members of the project
team. When it comes to coordinating
different models, over half (56%) state
that they federate a model which didn’t
rely on one piece of software. This shows
that the principles of ‘open BIM’ are, to
some extent, working in practice in
Australia and New Zealand.
In addition to the production of digital
drawings and 3D models, many
professionals are carrying out tasks
symptomatic of the wholesale adoption
of BIM. Collaboration is one of BIM’s key
tenets, and here we see that 78% of
professionals work collaboratively on
design. Furthermore, three quarters share
their models with design team members
outside their organization. Almost as many
(71%) share models with others within
their organization, across disciplines.
‘BIM tasks’ carried out by respondents in the past year
86%
78%
75%
71%
71%
67%
56%
46%
Do you coordinate project specifications with
drawings/models?
One of the aspirations of BIM is to improve
the communication and coordination of
information at all stages of a project – and
to pass on a complete set of information to
building users and managers at handover.
The survey findings suggest that, to some
degree, this is happening. Two thirds of
respondents said that they have used a
model from the very start to the very end of
a project, and almost half (46%) passed on
the model to those who are responsible for
the continued management of an asset.
31% For all projects
35% For the majority of projects
17% For minority of projects
17% Never
66%
coordinate
specifications
with drawings/
models
The industry update 33
Do you use IFC on projects you’ve been Do you understand what it means to Do you generate COBie output for projects Standards: Awareness and use
involved with? generate COBie? you’ve been involved with?
NATSPEC BIM Portal
31% 29% 11% 28%

Uniclass 2015
30% 32% 5% 33%

PAS 1192-2:2013
25% 26% 9% 39%

73% BS 1192-2007 +A2:2016

73% 73% 25% 34% 10% 31%
Lack of
Lack of Lack of
in house
in house in house ISO 19650-1
24% 37% 12% 28%
expertise
expertise expertise
PAS 1192-3:2014
20% 31% 8% 40%

ISO 19650-2
20% 37% 12% 32%

Omniclass
19% 40% 7% 34%

71% Yes 53% Yes 27% Yes BS 1192-4:2014

18% 34% 11% 37%
21% No 37% No 72% No
9% The Open BIM Object Standard (produced
Don’t know 10% Don’t know 1% Don’t know 17% 41% 10% 33%
by NATSPEC and Masterspec)
The NBS BIM Object Standard
16% 44% 14% 26%

While the survey shows that many design
professionals use Autodesk Revit, other
platforms are also used, including Graphisoft
ArchiCAD and 12d Model. It’s therefore
important that people using these different
software programs can share information
with each other. File formats like Industry
Foundation Classes (IFC) enable this,
and we see that 71% are using these
on projects.
Construction Operations Building
Information Exchange (COBie) data drops
also help to share project information with
project team members and the client,
regardless of the software platforms that
they use. COBie generates non-geometric
data about the project in a format that
can be opened in a spreadsheet. COBie
spreadsheets can be generated from
different documents or platforms, like the
specification or the model. This information
can then be passed, in a spreadsheet
format, to the FM team, who can import
it into the software that they use for
managing the asset.
Just over half of survey respondents (53%)
understand what generating COBie data
means: a slight majority. But this means
that almost half do not understand it.
A little over a quarter generate COBie data
for their projects. The most common reason
for not generating COBie data is the lack
of perceived need for it. This is primarily
about clients not requesting it, or there
being no contractual obligation to produce
it. For some, this appears to relate to the
type of work where infrastructure projects
or small-scale residential, for instance, are
not seen to require COBie. There is also
a sense that some clients and other
consultants don’t understand COBie,
so they either do not ask for it or are
not sure what to do with it. Another theme
is a lack of coordination between those
commissioning new projects (from a
capital expenditure budget) and those
managing assets (from an operating
expenditure budget). Finally, there
are those who do intend to generate
COBie data and are currently preparing
to do so.
‘ COBie is required where there is a client
need for input to their specific FM systems.
If the client doesn’t have this need, then
there is no requirement to generate COBie
outputs. There are also other methods
such as asset IDs that can be used instead’.
‘ Not relevant for transport projects;
instead of COBie we need asset owners
(who are generally state government road
authorities) to tell us what information
they want included in models and
then exported’.
‘ No contract requirement for it. Not sure
of the benefits for the types of projects
we do’.
‘ Client doesn’t want to spend the money...
they see it as more cost... many companies
have segregated CAPEX from [OPEX]
so much it’s hard to cross over useful
things like BIM’.
‘ It is time consuming, tedious to organise,
fraught with difficulty and output errors
and not requested’.
‘ Our level of maturity in this area is poor.
We have outlined a process but have not
yet generated COBie output’.
PAS 1192-5:2015
PAS 1192-6:2018
CIC BIM Protocol
The BS 8536 series (previously ‘Soft landings’)
The BS 8541 series
Information management requires
standardization and universally agreed
common data structures to make sure that
data can be shared across platforms, and
between different people and organizations.
It relies on a shared set of processes and
conventions, such as those on file naming.
This all needs to be set out somewhere,
and provided by an authoritative source
that professionals can access and trust –
standards and industry documents that aid
standardization. There is a range of such
resources that support standardization in
14% 36% 9% 41%
12% 34% 10% 43%
10% 33% 12% 46%
3% 29% 14% 54%
2% 31% 11% 55%
We use this standard/publication
I am aware of this standard/publication but have not used it
I am aware of this standard/publication but do not know if we have used it
I am not aware of this standard/publication
Australia and New Zealand. The most used The survey shows that standardization is
is the NATSPEC BIM Portal (31%), closely important, including in the production and
followed by Uniclass 2015 (30%). This level use of BIM objects, with 79% stating that
of usage of Uniclass 2015 is actually they apply a consistent standard when
comparable with that in the UK, creating them. Some also use standards
demonstrating that it can be applied across that have been developed for the industry
borders. The PAS and BS series of standards to follow: 17% had used the NATSPEC/
for BIM are also known or used by a sizeable Masterspec Open BIM Object Standard and
proportion of people in Australia and New 16% had used our NBS BIM Object Standard.
Zealand. And, despite only being published
at the end of 2018, many had used the new
International Standards for BIM: ISO 19650-1
(24%) and ISO 19650-2 (20%).

34 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 35
People source BIM objects in a variety of
ways. Most commonly, they create them
in-house and reuse them (76%), although
almost as many create them from scratch
for each project. Some maintain their own
library of objects (64%). There can be
a risk of keeping and reusing objects – the
information they contain can go out of
date, and there needs to be an agreed
process for managing them in organizations,
so that variants of the same object don’t
appear. Managing them and keeping them
all consistent and up-to-date can then
be difficult.
Just over half (52%) get them from
manufacturers, where they should be able to
trust that they do have the latest information
Where do you get the BIM objects your organization uses?
that accurately represents the product. The future
Many use BIM libraries, where the
The survey results have shown that many
information should also be up-to-date.
construction professionals recognize the
We see that 17% are using the NBS BIM
benefits of BIM – whether they are
library, where all objects adhere to our
experiencing them first-hand or anticipating
BIM Object Standard.
what would happen if they were to start
using BIM. This might explain why so many
have embraced it. But not everyone is using
it for all projects. What is preventing its
universal use? We’ve seen that adopting
BIM and digital ways of working does require
changes in the way that people and
organizations work. And there are also
signs that practitioners would value more
action and guidance from government,
as well as changes to the contractual
framework. In the survey, we explicitly
asked those who have not adopted BIM
what the barriers are to doing so.
Much of this is about knowledge, with the
top two barriers being lack of in-house
expertise (73%) and lack of training (67%).
Two thirds also cite lack of client demand.
We sometimes hear that cost is a barrier.
There are costs associated with investing in
new software to enable BIM, training and
the cost of people’s time that needs to be
put aside to learn new skills. However, only
37% felt that cost was a barrier.

They are created in-house and then reused 76%

Main barriers to using BIM (Those not adopted BIM)
They are created as needed for a project 71%
We maintain our own library of BIM objects 64% Lack of in-house expertise 73%
Manufacturers provide them for us to use 52% Lack of training 67%
They are included in our software package 44% No client demand 67%
We use generic BIM objects 35% Lack of standardized tools and protocols 47%
We use a BIM library other than the NBS BIM library 25% No established contractual framework for working with BIM 43%
We buy them from specialists outside our organization 24% Differences in expertise among collaborating parties in a project 40%
We use the NBS National BIM Library 17% Cost 37%
Don’t know 3% No time to get up to speed 37%
Lack of collaboration 33%
BIM is not relevant to the projects we work on 23%
Liability concerns 20%
Don’t see the benefit 17%
The projects we work on are too small 13%
We are unsure of the Government’s commitment to BIM 7%
Operating System specific software 7%
Other 13%

Top three barrier to using BIM (Those who have not adopted BIM)

73%
67% 67%
Lack of
Lack of No client
in-house
training demand
There can be a risk of keeping and reusing objects expertise
– the information they contain can go out
of date, and there needs to be an agreed process
for managing them in organizations, so that variants
of the same object don’t appear.

36 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 37
 Intention to adopt BIM in the future, for any projects Client demand for BIM

We currently use BIM 100% 66% 61%

0%
58% 47%
In one year’s time we will use BIM 99%
57%

In three years’ time we will use BIM 99%

65%

In five years’ time we will use BIM 96% Clients will Contractors
80%
increasing insist will increasingly insist
Already adopted BIM Not adopted BIM on us using BIM on us using BIM

Assessing BIM adoption

Adopted BIM: 66%

We have adopted BIM successfully 28%
6%

Not adopted BIM: 63%

If we don’t adopt BIM, we’ll get left behind 20%
Agree - Those adopted BIM Agree - Those not adopted BIM
17%

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

One of the barriers to using BIM, cited
earlier, was lack of client demand. Looking
ahead, almost two thirds (66%) of those
who have adopted BIM think that clients
Evaluating BIM adoption
will increasingly insist on them using it. Over
half (58%) of those yet to adopt BIM also
Adopted BIM: 1% think this. Similarly, 61% of BIM adopters
I’d rather we had not adopted BIM 7%
(and just under half of non-adopters,
92%
47%) believe that contractors will
Not adopted BIM: 6% increasingly insist on BIM use.
I’d rather not adopt BIM 31%
64% More broadly, a large majority (81%)
believe that they will need to use BIM
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree on all projects in the next five years. Most
survey respondents (88%) link collaboration
– a key BIM principle – with success.
People believe that creativity will become performance and other characteristics
more, not less, important (68%) with that demonstrate a product’s sustainability
people using their skills, knowledge and credentials, and to compare alternatives.
ideas to design the built environment –
Whilst part of adopting BIM involves
people do not see it as an entirely
automated process of ‘design by algorithm’. harnessing new, powerful technologies
to organize, coordinate and automate
It’s therefore unsurprising that very few
data processes, it is not about replacing
believe that traditional roles such as
the creativity, knowledge and skills
architect will disappear. Finally, the demands
of qualified and experienced design
of sustainability on the built environment
professionals.
are likely to significantly influence how
buildings are designed. BIM can help
here too, as the BIM requirements of
using structured and standardized
data make it easier to incorporate

Very few think that BIM is not relevant
to them, that their projects are too
small or that they see no benefit.
Furthermore, if we look at people’s
intention to adopt BIM in the future,
we see that over the next five years,
almost all survey respondents plan
to use it. Among those using it already,
virtually all expect to continue doing so.
For those not yet using it, 80% plan
to adopt BIM within five years, so the
intent is there.
These figures might be partly explained
by the finding that almost two thirds (66%)
of those who have adopted BIM consider
that they have done so successfully. And
almost as many (63%) of those who have
not adopted it are concerned that they’ll
be left behind if they don’t.
Furthermore, almost none of those
who have adopted BIM (1%) wish they
hadn’t, and only 6% of those yet to
adopt it would rather not.
Design in the future: in the next five years... (Those who agree)
Those who can effectively collaborate will 88%
be the most successful
We will need to use BIM on all projects 81%
The demands of sustainability will mean we will 79%
have to radically change how we design buildings
Creativity will become more important 68%
We will design by algorithm, once we’ve 31%
described design requirements

Traditional roles, like architect, 12%

will begin to disappear

38 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 39
Concluding thoughts
Looking at the results of this survey, we
can be cautiously positive. The indications
are that BIM adoption in Australia and
New Zealand is relatively high – perhaps
comparable with, or beyond, that of the UK.
There are also signs that it has continued
to grow in New Zealand compared with
previous years. Certainly, in Australia
and New Zealand, there is a fellowship
of professionals who believe that
BIM provides benefits to them and
their clients.
BIM is seen as part of a wider wave of
digital transformation and technological
change, which some people refer to as
digital engineering. Many acknowledge
that both broader digital transformation
(incorporating innovations such as
virtual reality, artificial intelligence and
computational design, as well as BIM)
is the future and will help to improve
an industry that is sometimes seen as
inefficient and slow to change. However,
the respondents to this survey clearly
recognize the challenges, and there
are many.
Two of the main barriers to using BIM are
lack of expertise and training. There is
a lot to learn when it comes to BIM, and it
should not be unnecessarily complicated.
The responses to this survey highlight the
issues with new terminology (which some
may call jargon), and the issues that arise
when people interpret these terms
differently. This highlights the need for
consistency in how BIM is adopted.
Clients need to understand how an asset delivered
with BIM can lead to more efficient delivery, and a set
of project data that helps them manage that asset
effectively throughout its life.
40 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
There are various initiatives promoting and
supporting the adoption of BIM, but many
call for a consistent approach. For some,
this means a federal mandate, as in the UK.
For others, this means a standard that
everyone can work to; perhaps a national
annex to the international ISO 19650 range.
Any new technology or process should
build on the positive elements of the past.
People adopting BIM shouldn’t dismiss
good examples of information management
that already exist. It’s also important not
to lose knowledge that has traditionally
existed within the professions – about how
buildings are built. This perhaps highlights
challenges for educational providers – how
to make sure that new built environment
graduates have the range of skills needed
to deliver great buildings and infrastructure,
using digital processes.
Finally, a central tenet of BIM is collaboration,
where all members of the project team work
together. If we believe that BIM is the future,
each team member needs to understand
that, and effective tools must be available
and affordable for each role. Clients need
to understand how an asset delivered with
BIM can lead to more efficient delivery,
and a set of project data that helps them
manage that asset effectively throughout
its life. All the different members of the
design team – as well as the contractors
and sub-contractors constructing buildings
or infrastructure – need to see how it
can help improve the efficiency of their
projects, and lead to benefits for their
organizations. All parties also need to
understand what information they need
from the other parties and what they,
in turn, need to deliver.
‘ One of the main issues with regards to Location of current workplace
adopting a National Standard is that
decision makers have predominantly
thrown out what we've done in the past.
For BIM to be successful, it really needs
to be a progression of what we've done
with the use of new technologies’.
‘ The current saturation of standards and Northern Territory*
experts plus the continuing invention of 0%
new terminology… is making use of BIM Queensland
overly complex and a constant struggle for
project teams to navigate miss-information
33%
Western Australia
to guide a project to a successful efficient
outcome that meets the client’s needs 5%
without bloating the deliverables with
South Australia
unnecessary BIM box ticking. KISS - 4%
keep it simple but serious’. New South Wales
24%
‘ Too many standards and different
organizations. ISO must produce a
standard - Organizations must follow it’.
Victoria 19%
‘ Even with BIM, to generate a fully accurate New Zealand - North Island 9%
model takes hours and hours of data input
and you need increasingly specialised
staff to handle the model. I think it will * One person from the Northern Territory did respond Tasmania 1%
take more than 5 years before BIM but due to rounding, this shows as 0%
becomes the norm’.
New Zealand - South Island 4%
‘ The schools need to be proactive in
About this survey and who responded
teaching BIM processes to new generation.
The clients need to adopt BIM for their We carried out an online survey between April and July this year. We are grateful to have
facility management, and only then, will received responses from 202 construction professionals based in Australia and New Zealand,
BIM become business as usual’. with the highest proportions from the eastern Australian states.
The industry update 41
 NBS Chorus
Organizations of all sizes were represented, technologists. People in these three roles All construction sectors were represented,

from micro businesses with one or two
people to large consultancies with over 500
staff. Those responding were from a range of
disciplines, but the most common ones were
BIM managers, architects and architectural
Intelligent construction
made up approximately half the sample, with from small-scale residential to commercial,
the other half spread across a range of roles, education, health and infrastructure.
including: contractor, engineer, project
manager, surveyor, landscape architect,
manufacturer and facilities manager.

Number of people employed in your organization specification in the cloud

1-2 20%
3-5 6% Work smarter and safer, collaborate better
6 - 15
16 - 25
4%
7%
and connect your workflow
26 - 50 10%
51 - 100 7%
101 - 250 10%
251 - 500 6%
501+ 29%

Project types involved in during the last 12 months

Offices 45%
Education 41%
Transport 38%
Retail 37%
Industrial 36%
Health 36%
Mixed use 33%
One-off house, extension, conversion or alteration 31%
Sport and leisure 31%
Culture and entertainment 31%
Other private housing 25%
Other public 21%
Other private 20%
Public housing including social housing 14%

Those responding were from a range of disciplines,

but the most common ones were BIM managers,
architects and architectural technologists. Find out more at theNBS.com.au
or book a demo on 1300 263 553
42 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 43
 Stewart Caldwell
Director,
How BIM has changed
Russell and Yelland
Architects
my practice:
BIM and its impact
on architects
Stewart Caldwell is Director and BIM Manager at Russell and Yelland
Architects in Adelaide. Russell and Yelland is a practice of about 15 people specializing
in civic projects, ranging from small projects up to $40M.

Russell and Yelland were early adopters
of Revit as a 3D documentation tool, and
Stewart has been responsible for systems
development and training of Revit and
BIM workflows for over 15 years. Stewart
is also course coordinator for construction
and BIM at the University of Adelaide.
Stewart is co-founder of Build-SA, which
provides training for BIM and corporate
strategy to the construction industry
in South Australia.
Since its adoption by our office more than
15 years ago, the pursuit of a BIM output
was seen to be delivering wins across many
areas, but it was hard to get a consistent
financial return on those projects. When
we adopted Revit as our BIM authoring
tool, we transferred all projects in the
office to this environment, deciding that all
projects would be delivered as BIM projects,
regardless of their size or complexity. It took
a number of years operating in a changing
BIM environment before any real (financial)
value was being realized through its
adoption. For a long time, we placed
the blame on external forces (such as
new technology, consultants, clients,
you name it). Ultimately, it came down
to us re-examining our business and the
way that we work.
We were determined to make the delivery
of BIM work, so we reviewed a number of
projects (some of which were successful,
and some which weren't), and tried to find
some common elements that would help
us find a new direction. The following charts
examine some project fees charged versus
resources and costs expended. For all of the
below projects that we reviewed, we made
sure that the design outcomes and levels of
client satisfaction were equitable to ensure
that they weren’t variables influencing
the outcomes. The analysis also only
explored projects from inception up to
the completion of documentation, and
did not look at the construction phase.

When we adopted Revit as our BIM authoring tool,

we transferred all projects in the office to this environment,
deciding that all projects would be delivered as BIM projects,
Image courtesy of Sam Noonan
regardless of their size or complexity.

44 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 45
Diagram 1: A review of less than successful projects The two charts on the left (Diagram 1)
illustrate two projects which we would class
as less than successful, from a fee and
earnings perspective: it’s clear that the cost
to the business significantly exceeded the
fee available. Despite each project having
different programmes, each project
ultimately took the same amount of time
but had different procurement models
affecting its delivery. The top project had a
very rigid programme which could not be
shifted or extended, the effect being a spike
in resources at the end to get the project
done on time. The bottom project did not
have the same programme restrictions, but
it took much longer to get to the same level
of development.
When the projects are overlayed (Diagram
1a) a pattern emerges. In the early phases of
the projects, both followed a very similar
path, which represented a fee spend and
resource commitment that one could argue
was fairly traditional. The last phases are
quite different due to the varying
procurement models being adopted, as
discussed above. Ultimately, the cost to the
business for both projects was much larger
than the original fee allowance.
Diagram 1a
46 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
Diagram 2: A review of more successful projects
Diagram 2a
By contrast, the charts on the left
(Diagram 2) are examples of two much
more successful projects.
It was obvious from first reviews that these
projects were illustrating vastly different
work patterns, especially in the beginnings
and ends of the projects.
When the projects are laid side by side,
(Diagram 2a) like the less successful
projects, a pattern emerges. The work
undertaken spikes in the early stages of the
projects, and again in the later stages,
before tapering off. We identified some of
the unique attributes of these projects
which drove their success, including:
• Better alignment of workflows throughout
the consultant team. The drops in effort
indicate periods where other consultants
needed to put in the work.
• Better resolution of design and
constructability issues earlier on in the
projects; this is reflected in the spikes in
effort during the earlier phases.
• Protracted design development phases
and reduced formal documentation
phases.
On the back of this review, two fundamental
changes were made in the practice:
• A new phase was introduced into
projects. The design development phase
was broken into two separate phases,
called ‘constructability’ and ‘coordination’.
• Projects were separated into two
categories: ‘coordinated’ or ‘collaborated’.
Collaborated projects adopted the new
phasing structure, while coordinated
projects were run traditionally with a
reduced expectation on the BIM
deliverables.
The industry update 47
 Diagram 3: Options for the scope of the project leader
Coordination
Design
Information Management
For years we Introducing not only a new project phase
but a new project type into the office made
managed the gap programming of projects and resources
much more complex. Projects now needed
between people’s certain skills, based on their deliverables.
skills and the This often clashed with what projects
needed from a client’s perspective,
project outcomes especially when there were existing
by assigning BIM
relationships with certain staff. We then
identified the need for a ‘third wheel’ on
managers or projects. For years, we managed the gap
between people’s skills and the project
model managers outcomes by assigning BIM managers or
as magicians which model managers as ‘magicians’, who just
solved BIM-related issues on a project.
just solved BIM That only really worked about half the time,
mainly due to limited resourcing. After
related issues a few too many failures, we realised that
on a project. the role of a project magician simply doesn’t
exist, and we were often asking staff to
do things that they weren't physically
able to complete.
48 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
Virtual Modeller
Project Architect
Project Architect
BIM Manager
Historically, each project has a single
leader, but it became evident that managing
a project’s design, coordination and
information was just too much for a single
person to handle. However, depending
on a person’s skill set, what they could
handle would vary from project to project.
Additionally, it seemed that whatever the
team structure, the person leading the
project also had to lead the design for the
project to be a success. This resulted in a
project structure where the project leader
assumes one of the two roles, and support
is assigned to fill the gap left behind,
as illustrated in the diagram above.
Once we established that each project had
a potential gap to fill, we established two
new roles in the office: BIM manager and
virtual modeller, one managing coordination
and the other information. Defining the
scope of these roles on each project is
an essential exercise. In my experience,
misunderstanding language and
terminology seems to be one of the
biggest hurdles to understanding change.
Defining what you mean when you refer
to a BIM manager, for example, is critical
so that all staff are aware of expectations.
Identifying new phases and creating job Diagram 4: Early BIM workflows
titles is all well and good, but executing
projects in a BIM environment is still a
challenging exercise. Introducing new
PDF’s, Paper, some kind
work phases and altering project leadership Design Model 1 of model output
fundamentally alter the way that projects
need to be delivered. In addition, the
technology used in this space has been
Merged
drastically and constantly changing over Design Model 2 Checking
the last 10–15 years. For me, all this Model
shifting and changing is in response to
the industry’s attempts to get a hold on
one of BIM’s biggest buzzwords: Design Model 3
‘collaboration’. It feels as though we
have a ‘game-changer’ introduced into
Rework
this field every couple of years, with
each new tool a vast improvement on
the one before, but all are trying to address
the same issue highlighted on the right
(Diagram 4). Diagram 5: New BIM workflows
Early BIM essentially blending new
technology with old work practices.
Information Management
Highly inefficient, lots of rework, and
generally frustrating and expensive.
A much more fluid workflow, with more
people in the model more often through Design Design
a variety of simultaneous platforms.
Design development, modelling and review
Data Data
are happening on all fronts from multiple
directions. Results are superior, but
Merged
Model
management is much more complex.
The process of running BIM successfully
Design
Input
Design
Input
and consistently across a variety of project
types still has a way to go. There are many
issues in industry outside of the typical
architectural practice, which also need Collaborative Cloud based tools,
to change for this to happen. Outdated VR, live rendering etc
procurement relationships, irrelevant
contract documents, variable deliverables
and variable uptake from contractors and
clients all stand as roadblocks to real
success. Despite these factors, we still find
that working to deliver a BIM on projects
provides benefit for our business, although
those benefits may not always be just about
money. When working collaboratively in a
changing industry, we have had to accept
that despite our outputs being dependent
on the inputs of our industry partners,
not all will have the same ambitions or
objectives as us. Over the years, we have
strived to develop workflows which allow
for these obstacles and give us licence
to manoeuvre through them.
The industry update 49
 Ken Lee
Group BIM Manager,
BIM – The importance
Robert Bird Group
of being constructible
Digital engineering (DE), as defined by the Australian Government,
is the convergence of emerging technologies such as building information modelling (BIM),
geographic information systems (GIS) and their related systems to derive
better business, project and asset management outcomes. DE enables new pan-industry
collaboration, using computer-aided design to output a variety of digital assets.

Within the Australia and New Zealand (ANZ)
region, BIM (as part of DE) has experienced
an enormous uptake in the past few years.
This is partly due to government initiatives,
as well as private stakeholders advocating
better production and value within the
construction industry. State and territory
governments in Australia (and, likewise,
the New Zealand Government) have
adopted (or are adopting) BIM guidelines
which mirror those of the British Standards.
Government projects across the ANZ
regions are seeking selected BIM
deliverables such as 4D sequencing
and 5D quantification, as part of the
successful tender.
Recognizing this vital cog within the wheel Within the confines of BIM, the engineering
of digital engineering, building industry and technology drives have given rise to
professionals have gradually acclimatized a new analytical shift in business proposition
to the teething disruption of BIM, and are when procuring government opportunities
actively building new capabilities to and public-private partnerships (PPP).
enhance their scope of services. This change in tender submissions, where
requirements for managing BIM workflows
Robert Bird Group (RBG) embarked on and applying BIM in project coordination run
an engineering and technology initiative: parallel to engineering proposals, refocused
firstly as a direct response to bridge the the concept of BIM for constructability
gap between engineering, digital design within project procurement.
and BIM; and secondly to provide consistent
technical and management support to
clients in procuring and delivering
multifaceted projects. The combination
of both digital design and BIM requires a
shift in collaboration, critical thinking and
new technical skills which a decade ago
might have been deemed superfluous
and unnecessary.

State and territory governments in Australia

(and, likewise, the New Zealand Government) have
adopted (or are adopting) BIM guidelines which mirror
those of the British Standards.

50 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 51
BIM PROCESS WORKFLOW
BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL AND NOTATION BPMN
BIM for constructability
BIM for constructability as a concept has
long been applied within the construction
industry. With the advancement in BIM
technologies, it has further simplified the
interrogation of BIM models and solutions
to complex issues through BIM.
Robert Bird Group (RBG), as construction
engineers, frequently integrates BIM
expertise to review issues such as erection
strategies, calculation of lifting capacities,
clash coordination and construction
visualization. This holistic approach
between engineering and BIM creates an
ideal environment for the implementation
of BIM for constructability.
BIM for constructability consists of two
distinct strategies, which are not stand-alone
but form part of a wider project management
solution throughout the lifespan of the
project. They are defined as:
i. BIM leadership and management – to
define process workflows, which are
used to outline project milestones,
outcomes and delivery.
ii. BIM applications – utilizing computer-
aided design to extract data and
manipulate computer-aided design
model elements to assist in successful
project coordination.
52 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
BIM leadership and management
Commonly neglected as playing second
fiddle to BIM deliverables, leadership and
management play crucial roles in ascertaining
structure and milestones within the stages
of design and construction. The traditional
roles of project managers and coordinators
have started to incorporate BIM processes
as part of the wider curriculum, amidst the
realization that BIM workflows affect project
deliverables. Clearly defined organizational
and individual roles, and the often-overlooked
business process model and notation
(BPMN), underpin the fundamentals of
leadership and management.
Leadership and management
initiatives provide an overarching project
implementation plan from project
inception through to project close-out.
These processes, coupled with internal
methodologies and quality assurances,
create the foundation in which BIM
workflows integrate closely with project
programme and milestones.
Through this controlled environment,
leadership and management provide
gateways, actionable activities and
modelling strategy, along with extraction
that serves not only as a substitute
to project programme but also as a
supplementary support for BIM models
and data deliverables.
Leadership and management initiatives
provide an opportunity to apply various BIM
applications to disseminate data information
and assist in constructability processes.
BIM applications
BIM applications are extensive and varied
across built environment sectors. From the
outset of capital expenditure, there is an
assortment of BIM applications (from
quantification of elements through to
clash coordination) which may be required
in tender submissions. There is, however,
still a shortage of skilled personnel proficient
in these applications due to the variety
and complexities of BIM.
RBG’s construction engineering services
integrates nine distinct BIM applications
throughout project procurement, as a
means of constructing and deconstructing
the process methodology. These BIM
applications are:
• 4D construction sequencing.
• 5D quantity take-off.
• 6D asset data input.
• Visualization – construction visualization.
• Optimized procurement.
• Intelligent modelling.
• Constructability analyses.
• Engineering analyses.
• Safety planning.
Far Left: Leadership and
Management Workflow
Left: BIM Applications Example
of the Emporium Development
in Melbourne
Both Images courtesy
of RBG Virtual Design
& Construction Team
Constructability outlook
These individual applications are both Project constructability is a constant
independent and interdependent within challenge facing contractors across the
the leadership and management strategy. world. As architectural and design ideas
They outline project constructability through become more organic and complex,
the utilization of computer-aided software constructability and its methodology
to illustrate the clear, interrelated practices will continue to transform standard
of BIM. When integrated, the applications construction processes.
provide construction confidence and clarity
It is therefore crucial that BIM for
for the entire duration of the project.
constructability continues to evolve and
Construction engineering project stages tackle complex designs and challenges.
routinely require 4D visualization and The expectation of BIM for constructability
safety planning to be incorporated with is always simple – to provide clarity and
any associated temporary works. The consistency through BIM, and in doing so
combination of these applications using to diminish project inaccuracies and
BIM offers outstanding constructability mitigate foreseeable risks.
analyses, such as clash coordination
between temporary and permanent works,
in addition to the ability to quantify model
elements during the project stages.
Running in parallel with these stages,
detailed intelligent modelling provides
congestion coordination investigation
and optimized procurement, such as
the implementation of QR code tagging,
addressing transportation logistics and
inventory management.
The overlapping of these applications
allows informed and structured decisions
to be reviewed, when combined with the
leadership and management strategy.
The industry update 53
 John Gelder
University of South
A history of Uniclass 2015
Australia
Classification is key to the free exchange of digital information in building modelling.
While tools such as COBie and buildingSMART IFCs are neutral with respect to classification, in reality
the use of a single classification by all those involved on a project, and across multiple projects,
including for ventures such as Smart Cities (DPM&C, 2016), would make life very much easier.

The goal of Uniclass 2015 is to be the Uniclass

single classification system of choice
for digital construction.
The alternative is the use of multiple
classification systems which, if they are
to talk to each other, must be mapped.
Mapping between classification systems
is imperfect. Simple 1:1 mappings
(e.g. rooflights:skylights) are not universal.
There will also be 1:many, many:1, 1:0, 0:1,
and many:many mappings – management
of these requires human intervention,
defeating the purpose in a digital
environment. This is illustrated in the
NRM1 mapping built into the Uniclass
2015 tables (Delany, 2019).
Uniclass 2015 (NBS, 2019) can trace its
origins to a series of separate classification
tables developed from the 1970s to the
1990s by different organizations (UK and
international) and assembled in the 1997
book ‘Uniclass: Unified classification for
the construction industry’ (Crawford
et al., 1997). These tables were:
• CI/SfB
(Construction Index/ Samarbetskomittén
för Byggnadsfrågor, 1976).
• CAWS
(Common Arrangement of Work
Sections for building works, 1987).
• CESMM3
(Civil Engineering Standard Method
of Measurement, edition 3, 1991).
• UDC
(Universal Decimal Classification, 1993).
• EPIC Version 1
(Electronic Product Information
Co-operation, 1994).
Uniclass comprised 15 tables, adopting
these five tables and using other sources
such as the ‘London classification of
business studies’ (Vernon, 1979), ISO
9836:1992, the CIB Master List (1993) and
the RIBA ‘Plan of Work for Design Team
Operation’ (1997). Most of the tables were
created specifically for Uniclass by the
editorial team at NBS Services (Table 1).
The set was ‘unified’ only in the sense that
they were all in one book, under a common
name: Uniclass. They had not been revised
to ensure genuine unification, and the core
tables continued an independent life outside
Uniclass. CAWS was revised in 1998, EPIC
2.0 was published in 1999, CESMM4 was
published in 2012 and the latest release of
UDC was in 2019 (UDC Consortium, 2019).
In a pre-BIM world, this independence did
not matter greatly since each table was
used by different parts of the construction
sector for different purposes, and there was
little or no need for any connection between
them. For example, the Elements tables
were used by building or civil sector quantity
surveyors and estimators, the Work sections
tables by building or civil sector specifiers
and subcontractors (CAWS was also used by
quantity surveyors), and the Products table
by manufacturers and design librarians.

The ‘Work results’ table was designed

as an armature for all the physical tables, from Regions
down to Products, and for Project management.

54 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 55
Table 1: The development of Uniclass 2015
LEGACY TABLES UNICLASS, 1997
- A Form of information.
- B Subject disciplines.
- C Management.
- -
CI/SfB Table 0 D Facilities.
- E Construction entities.
- -
- F Spaces.
- G Elements for buildings.
- H Elements for civil
engineering works.
- -
CAWS J Work sections for
buildings.
CESMM3 K Work sections for civil
engineering works.
- -
EPIC L Construction products.
- P Materials.
- M Construction aids.
- -
- N Properties and
characteristics.
UDC Q UDC.
- -
Uniclass 2
In the early 2000s, as NBS was developing
a new specification product for the building
information modelling (BIM) environment
(NBS Create, published 2012 and now
available through NBS Chorus), the need
for a genuinely unified classification system
became apparent. BIM requires all parties to
exchange and share information, all the way
through a physical object hierarchy running
from Regions to Products (modelling
embodies the idea that big things are made
of little things), and also across non-physical
object classes such as the disciplines
themselves, the project timeline and project
management. For this to work, a coherent
classification system that neutrally serves
all construction sectors and disciplines is
required. Uniclass did not meet this need.
For example, requirements for the civil and
building sectors were split for two key object
classes (Elements and Work sections), even
though many projects and assets involve
both sectors. This split makes data exchange
56 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019
UNICLASS 2, 2012 ISO 12006-2: 2015
- Construction
information
- Construction agent
- Management
Project phases - -
Complexes Construction complex
Entities Construction entity
Activities - -
Spaces Built space
Elements Construction element
Systems - Ss Systems
Work results Work result
Work results - -
subsections
Products Construction product
- -
- Construction aid
- Construction process
- Construction property
- -
- -
and mining unnecessarily difficult
(brickwork, for example, was classified
in two tables).
NBS began work on the development of this
new classification system – independently
at first, and then under the aegis of CPI
(Construction Project Information), which
owned the rights to Uniclass and was
responsible for its development. The first
ten draft tables of Uniclass 2 (as it was then
called) were published for comment in
2012 (Gelder, 2012). See Table 1.
Uniclass 2 included a number of innovations.
The ‘Work results’ table was designed as an
armature for all the physical tables, from
Regions down to Products, and for Project
management. The ‘Work results subsections’
table was the BIM-based Uniclass version of
North America’s SectionFormat (CSI, 2008).
The ‘Project phases’ table was based on the
RIBA Plan of Work, but extended across the
entire project timeline, from pre-project to
UNICLASS 2015, 2015 UNICLASS 2015, 2019
- FI Form of information
- Ro Roles
- PM Project
management
- (SBRI & TSB, 2014). The brief specified
- Co Complexes
- En Entities
Ac Activities
Sp Spaces SL Spaces/ Locations
Ee Elements EF Elements/ Functions
Ss Systems
- -
-
Pr Products Pr Products
- -
- TE Tools/ Equipment
- -
- -
- -
- Zz CAD
post-project, and included a consistent
set of sub-phases for each phase. The
‘Complexes, Entities, Activities’ and
‘Spaces’ tables were all parallel, based on
activity (e.g. Group 45 in all of them was
Residential), and were ultimately derived
from CI/SfB Table 0, ‘Physical environment’.
All the physical tables (Complexes to
Products) dealt with buildings, linear
infrastructure (transport and utilities) and
process engineering. The Systems and
Products tables included ‘soft’ FM systems
and products, based on BS EN 15221-1:2006.
The approach to numbering of objects, table
depth, object placement and granularity
was consistent across all tables.
A related activity was the development
of ISO 12006-2:2015 (ISO, 2015) over
2011–2013. This standard replaced the 2001
edition, and outlines a dozen possible tables
for a construction sector classification
system (Table 1).
Uniclass 2015
In due course, the need for a classification
system better than Uniclass was recognized
independently by the UK Government,
and it ran a competition for a new
classification system (and a digital toolkit)
for the construction sector over 2014
a classification system that: served the
entire project timeline; was sector-neutral
and discipline-neutral; had a logical physical
object hierarchy; aligned with the revised
version of ISO 12006-2; was dynamic,
online and free; was consistent between
and within tables; was relatively simple
to use; and comprised objects that could
be mapped to synonyms and definitions.
The competition was won by a consortium
led by RIBA Enterprises (NBS), based on
Uniclass 2. The rights to Uniclass were
transferred from CPI to the Government
as part of this process.
Above: Traditional specification structured by CAWS (Uniclass 1.4 Table K). The need for
extensive cross referencing is indicated.
Below: Specification structured by Uniclass 2015. The systems and products are linked together.
Having won the competition, the
consortium fleshed out Uniclass, especially
on the infrastructure side (thanks to
Mott MacDonald). The completed draft
classification system was launched
in 2015 as Uniclass 2015 (Gelder, 2015).
It can be seen that Uniclass 2015
generally aligns with the ISO tables,
as required. The main exception is the
Work results table, which was included
in Uniclass 2 but has been dropped in
Uniclass 2015 as it is redundant for BIM.
This is because the ‘traditional’ Work
results table, of the kind seen in Uniclass
and MasterFormat, and envisaged in the
ISO, is used to map systems to their
component products.
This is modelling, not classification, and
is the job of the model. For classification
purposes, this table can be replaced by
the Systems and Products tables. For similar
reasons, the ‘Work results subsections’
table has been dropped as it was concerned
with modelling rather than classification.
BIM specification systems such as NBS
Chorus take care of the modelling, and
the properties.
The inclusion of the ‘Systems’ table is
another difference. The ISO has ‘Elements’
which are recursive (i.e. to sub-elements),
but does not make any distinction between
the technically neutral (not designed) and
technically specific (designed). This is
unhelpful in the real world. In Uniclass 2015,
Elements are technically neutral objects
(e.g. External wall), and Systems are
technically specific (e.g. Masonry walling
system). They correspond to the technical
solutions for sub-elements (e.g. External
wall structure, in this case), and to trades
or sub-contracts. The use of Systems
completes a logical object class hierarchy.
Unlike Uniclass, Uniclass 2015 is intended to
be ‘dynamic’: to improve. Since publication
of the first four tables (Spaces, Elements,
Systems, Products), Uniclass 2015 has
continued to be developed, with new tables
being added, and the content of the original
tables being considerably expanded (the
Products table is now up to version 1.14,
for example). In particular, a great deal
of content for linear infrastructure has
been added through liaison with UK (and
overseas) bodies such as Highways England,
Transport for London, the Environment
Agency and Water UK.
Uniclass 2015 now comprises 12 tables
(Table 1). The use of Uniclass 2015 is
embedded in BS EN ISO 19650 (in the UK
National Annex). NBS has acquired the
rights to Uniclass 2015, and will therefore
be developing and maintaining it beyond
the original five-year obligation established
through the competition. It is implemented
in NBS Chorus and the National BIM Library,
both available in Australia.
The industry update 57
 Left: Objects from different tables within
Uniclass 2015 annotated on a drawing generated
from a modelled environment.
15 20 25 30 32 35 37 40 45
Preparatory Structural Wall and barrier Roof, floor Damp-proofing, Stair and ramp Tunnel, shaft, Signage, fittings, Flora
and paving waterproofing vessel and tower furnishings and fauna
and plaster and equipment
Right (top): A common coding structure within finishing
Uniclass 2015 for the larger scale items.

Right (bottom): A common coding structure

within Uniclass 2015 for elements, functions
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
and systems. Water disposal Piped supply Heating, Ventilation Electrical power Communications, Transport Process Soft facility
cooling and and air and lighting security, safety engineering management
refrigeration conditioning and protection

10 20 25 30 32 35 40 42 45
Preparation Administrative Cultural Industrial Water and land Medical, Recreational Sport and activity Residential
and repair commercial and educational management health welfare
protective scientific and and sanitary
services information

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Water disposal Piped supply Heating, Ventilation Electrical power Communications, Transport Operation and Circulation
cooling and and air generation security, safety maintenance and storage
refrigeration conditioning and distribution and protection

Internationalization
An interesting aspect of Uniclass 2015
is its adoption outside the UK. The tables
have been downloaded thousands of times
by individuals and organizations all around
the world. In Australia, it has been formally
adopted by Transport for New South Wales
(TfNSW, 2019, which requires a system
compliant with ISO 12006-2:2015), and
recommended for use in the Victorian
Digital Asset Strategy (Office of Projects
Victoria, 2019). TfNSW has been contributing
to the development of Uniclass 2015
(Gelder, 2018b).
Otherwise, Australia is still in the position
of having multiple independent tables
for different object classes. As noted by
NATSPEC (NATSPEC, 2008), there is no
local equivalent to Uniclass. Local ‘Work
result’ tables include NATSPEC’s work
sections table (NATSPEC, 2016), the related
classification supporting ANZSMM (AIQS,
2018) and SpecPack’s use of MasterFormat
(SpecPack, 2019). There is no agreement
for specifications and bills of quantities to
use the same classification, as there was in
the UK with CAWS. Local tables for transport
infrastructure include the Asset Classification
System used by TfNSW – and now being
replaced by Uniclass 2015 (TfNSW, 2014),
and the One Road Network Classification
(ORNC) used in New Zealand and by
Austroads (Austroads, 2016).
Other Australian organizations have
developed other classification tables,
such as the ABS ‘Functional Classification
of Buildings’ (ABS, 2011) and the NCC
‘Classification Summary of Buildings
and Structures’ (ABCB, 2019). The
current situation does not support
simple digital information exchange.
Uniclass 2015 has developed from
NBS-specific beginnings, to UK-wide
adoption, to the beginnings of international
usage. This is very encouraging for the
future of global open-BIM, of the kind
promoted by buildingSMART:
‘ buildingSMART’s vision is the full
realization of the societal, environmental
and economic benefits of open sharable
infrastructure and building asset
information into commercial and
institutional processes worldwide’
(buildingSMART, 2019).
However, it does face competition,
e.g. from the older North American
OmniClass (CSI, 2013), and from the less
sophisticated Scandinavian CoClass
(Svensk Byggtjänst, 2019). The entry
of NBS into the North American market
(Ford, 2017) perhaps indicates the start of
the adoption of Uniclass 2015 in that region.
However, it will have an uphill battle because
OmniClass (notably the MasterFormat and
UniFormat tables) is entrenched, even
though it is evidently not being maintained
(the most recent table is dated 2013) and is
not really fit for usage in a BIM environment
(Gelder, 2013). As for Scandinavia, Uniclass
2015 supports the use of synonyms, and
these could be in other languages, so it is
possible to implement it across Europe,
for example.
Of course, Uniclass 2015 also needs more
development. In particular, it has little or
no process engineering content, and it
needs a ‘Properties’ table (Gelder, 2018a).
It is going to be interesting, then, to watch
the future of Uniclass 2015: both its
adoption and its content.
References
Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) (2019),
‘National Construction Code’, Volume 1, Part A6,
‘Building classification’, ABCB: Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011),
‘Functional Classification of Buildings’, ABS: Canberra,
online at: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestprodu
cts/1268.0.55.001Contents1999%20(Revision%202011)
Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) (2018),
‘Australian and New Zealand Standard Method of
Measurement of Building Works’, AIQS/MBA: Sydney.
Austroads (2016), ‘Data Standard for Road Management
and Investment’, Austroads: Sydney.
British Standards Institute (BSI) (2006),
BS EN 15221-1:2006: ‘Facility management.
Terms and definitions’, BSI: London.
British Standards Institute (BSI) (2019), BS EN ISO
19650-2:2019: ‘Organization and digitization of information
about buildings and civil engineering works, including
building information modelling – Information management
using building information modelling: Delivery phase
of the assets’, BSI: London.
buildingSMART (2019), ‘Vision and Mission’, buildingSMART,
online at: www.buildingsmart.org/about/vision/
Conseil International du Bâtiment pour la Recherche
l’Etude et la Documentation (CIB) (1993), CIB Publication
18: ‘Master List of Headings for the Arrangement and
Presentation of Information in Technical Documents
for Design and Construction’, CIB: Rotterdam.
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) (2008),
SectionFormat™/PageFormat™: ‘The Recommended
Format for Construction Specifications’, CSI: Alexandria, VA.
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) (2013),
OmniClass™, CSI: Alexandria, VA, online at:
www.csiresources.org/standards/omniclass.
Crawford, M et al. (eds.) (1997), ‘Uniclass:
Unified classification for the construction industry’,
RIBA Publications: London.
Delany, S. (2019), Classification, NBS: Newcastle upon Tyne,
online at: https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification
#classificationtables.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPM&C)
(2016), ‘Smart Cities Plan’, Commonwealth of Australia:
Canberra.
Electronic Product Information Co-operation (EPIC) (1994),
‘EPIC Construction Product Grouping’, Version 1.0, WTCB/
CSTC: Zaventum.
Ford, C. (2017), ‘Overseas expansion for Newcastle’s NBS
with developments in Australia and Canada’, Chronicle Live,
26 January.
Gelder, J.E. (2012), ‘Ten tables in Uniclass 2’, NBS Journal,
20th May (16–17).
Gelder, J.E. (2013), ‘OmniClass™: a critique’, NBS, 1st May,
online at: www.thenbs.com/knowledge/omniclass-a-critique
Gelder, J.E. (2015), ‘The Design and Development of a
Classification System for BIM’, in ‘WIT Transactions on the
Built Environment’, 149: ‘Building information modelling
(BIM) in Design, Construction and Operations’, WIT Press:
Southampton (477–491).
Gelder, J.E. (2018a), ‘AP-T333-18: Asset Data Harmonisation
Stage III: BIM IFC Alignment Review’, Austroads: Melbourne.
Gelder, J.E. (2018b), ‘Classification and Transport for New
South Wales’, NBS, 23rd May, online at: www.thenbs.com.
au/about-nbs/press-releases/classification-and-transport-
for-new-south-wales
Institution of Civil Engineers (1991), CESMM3: ‘Civil
Engineering Standard Method of Measurement’, 3rd
edition, Thomas Telford: London.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
(1992), ISO 9836:1992: ‘Performance standards in
building - Definition and calculation of area and space
indicators’, ISO: Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2015),
ISO 12006-2:2015: ‘Building construction – Organization of
information about construction works – Framework for
classification’, ISO: Geneva.
NATSPEC (2008), TR 02: ‘Information classification systems
and the Australian construction industry’, NATSPEC: Sydney.
NATSPEC (2016), National Classification System,
NATSPEC: Sydney.
NBS (2019), Uniclass 2015, NBS: Newcastle upon Tyne,
online at: www.thenbs.com/our-tools/uniclass-2015
Office of Projects Victoria (2019), ‘Victorian Digital Asset
Strategy’, Department of Treasury and Finance: Melbourne.
Ray-Jones, A & D Clegg (1976), ‘CI/SfB Construction
indexing manual’, RIBA Publications: London.
Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) (1997), ‘Plan of
Work for Design Team Operation’, RIBA Publications: London.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) & Technology
Strategy Board (TSB) (2014), SBRI/TSB 189-010: ‘Functional
specification: A digital tool for building information
modelling’, SBRI: London.
SpecPack (2019), SpecPack 30, SpecPack: Oakleigh,
online at: https://specpack.com.au/specpack/
Svensk Byggtjänst (2019), CoClass, Svensk Byggtjänst:
Stockholm, online at: https://coclass.byggtjanst.se
Transport for New South Wales (2014),
‘Asset Information Management’, TfNSW: Sydney.
Transport for New South Wales (2019),
ST-202: ‘Digital Engineering Standard’, Part 1 – ‘Concepts
and Principles’, TfNSW: Sydney.
UDC Consortium (2019), ‘Master Reference File 12’, UDC
Consortium: The Hague, online at: www.udcc.org/index.php
Vernon, K.D.C. et al. (1979), ‘The London classification of
business studies: a classification and thesaurus for business
libraries’, 2nd edition, ASLIB: London.

58 Australia and New Zealand BIM Report 2019 The industry update 59
NBS
Level 22
120 Spencer St
Melbourne VIC 3000

Follow us on Twitter
@ theNBS

For enquiries about NBS

T 1300 263 553
E info@theNBS.com
W theNBS.com.au