Construction’s Misguided ‘Model Based’ Ideology

Paraphrasing Country singer Johnny Paycheck, “Take this Model and Shove It.”

Yes. You heard me correctly. But just to be sure, let me rephrase it another way….”F_ck the Model“.

There. That should do it.

That may seem a bit of an odd thing to say. Especially for someone like me. After all, I’ve spent most of my career working with technology in Manufacturing and Construction. It’s been good to my family and I. But like many things, it can go too far. And it has. It’s time someone stands up and says something.

Why Do You Oppose 3d Models?

Why am I opposed to 3d models? Simply put, I’m not.

I’m opposed to idealistic visions of a utopia where everything can be solved with a 3d model. That may be the case one day, but it won’t be in my lifetime. Technology moves fast. But we’re also a long way off from promises made even a mere decade ago. The value of creating many 3d models does not overcome the cost to generate them (or maintain them).

There’s a lot of reasons NOT to model things. I won’t elaborate too deeply here. You’ll either get it or you won’t. But to summarize, here’s some of the major reasons to NOT 3d model something…

  • No time / schedule
  • No resources / staff
  • Lacking tools / technology
  • Less efficient / takes longer
  • No value / creates waste

If you disagree and think we should 3d model everything…like right now today, consider you might be part of the problem.

The 3d Model Vision

There’s a lot of folks who tell you how things “should be”. Digital Twin this and that. Everything will have a perfectly pristine working digital clone. Identical in every detail.

For the most part, I agree with them. However there’s an economic ecosystem at play. It’s beyond the control of a mere few wishful thinkers and prognosticators. It takes a while to turn around an industrial complex the size of constructon. So until modeling everything adds value offsetting it’s cost, some things (many things) should never be modeled. Ever.

Some will say this is because the industry full of laggards. Those reluctant to change. But look around. The skyscrapers, the roads and bridges, the dams and monuments. Do they look like they were constructed by laggards? Next time you’re in a big city, walk up to a construction worker and call them a laggard. See how that goes for you.

It’s also important to keep in mind how things “are” didn’t just happen in an ignorance vacuum. Things evolved for a reason. And until those reasons go away, we’re left with what “is” not “what should be”. And if things haven’t changed as you expected, consider the problem might by more complex than you give it credit. Those ‘laggards’ as they’re called, just might know something you don’t.

Resistance to Overboard

3d Modeling in manufacturing preceded common use in construction by about two decades. Same with concepts like PLM which is manufacturing’s ‘BIM’. Lean? Started in manufacturing (Just like me).

I pushed hard for 3d modeling back in one of my old companies. Endured the eye rolls and comments about how “3d is for boxes, not complex things like the warped surfaces” which they were doing in 2d AutoCAD. I also promoted Revit for a manufacturer of construction materials before Autodesk acquired the technology.

In each of those cases, when they finally saw what I was trying to convey, they over reacted and went too far. Complete abandonment of all 2d even where it made sense and 3d had no added value. They even attempted to do manufactured piece part modeling in Revit where Inventor or Solidworks was better suited. What was need was nuance and a blended approach. Instead the result was a binary shift. Classic throwing the baby out with the bath water. Lessons learned the hard way.

Sometimes when you apply too much force to a seemingly immovable or stuck object, it’ll eventually break free and go beyond it’s acceptable tolerance. If you’ve ever busted a knuckle trying to remove a stuck bolt while working on your car, you know what I mean.

3d Modeling has went that same way. Gone too far. If you ask me, as an industry are suffering from bruised, broken and bleeding knuckles.

The Problem With 3d Models

So what’s wrong with the current 3d modeling approach? Absolutely Everything.

No, not THAT ‘Everything’. There’s a lot of 3d modeling that creates incredible value and eliminates waste. It greatly exposes risk before cost is incured. In those cases we should do more not less.

The ‘Everything’ I’m talking about is that we’ve somehow moved into this unattainable, low intellect thinking that 3d modeling is the answer for….well, just about EVERYTHING. Revit projects have become nothing more than an erotic orgy of data vomit.

Oh look…corn. I don’t remember having corn. Is that a piece of baked potato? A date dump from a 3d model often results in forensics to even determine what the hell it is.

  • Need data? Add it to the model.
  • Nothing modeled? Model it.
  • Data changed? Open the Model and edit it.

Somehow the 3d Model turned into not only the single-source of truth but the ONLY source of truth. Merit for what to put in a model is typically controlled by somone with limited perspective. Can the computer can open it, navigate efficenetly and display/print sheets in an asthetically pleasing way? That’s the benchmark used today. There’s not a shred of data lifecycle cost or maintenance perspective let alone the cost and impact of those decisions up and down stream from the model.

This is absolutely flawed thinking. When you look at the data required for the built environment, there literally is no commercially available applications on the market today to help you manage this data. Hardly at the project level, and certainly not at the enterprise level. None. They’re all focused on the project model at it’s core….not project data. And certainly not enterprise data.

Yes, there are applications that help you manage portions of data or small genres of data. But nothing exists today which allows a company to manage their AEC ‘Data’ and leverage it across the enterprise. Once again I repeat, NOTHING.

Baseless Claim or Reality?

I’ve been thinking along these lines for some time. Years perhaps. I’ve been in User Groups and Meetups. Vendor Webinars. Industry Conferences. Hallway conversations. Far too many times I’ve heard “Model it” or ‘Add it to the Model”. No debate. No discussion. Just an accepted fact without any hint of value focused thought.

There’s a lot of examples in other industries that suggest alternate thinking. One is Manufacturing which typically leads trends in constriction by a couple decades. Manufacturing has Data Management systems and PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) systems. These are database systems that manage not only models but the data about the models. The key is that the data is associated to the model from an external database. They typically contain a lot of data that isn’t modeled. Anyone model Grease or Paint? A well implemented PLM system will tell you exactly how much you need and where to procure it all without a model of it.

Another notable example is GIS (Geographic Information Systems). A database is at it’s core, not CAD data. CAD data is merely just a small subset of data in a GIS system. Imagine a home changes owners. How does someone at the County get their GIS system updated? They update a database. What aren’t they doing? Opening CAD…Editing a graphical polygon with the owner information and saving the CAD file.

In both of these cases, external databases are linked to and help manage graphical models. The models don’t contain all of the data. And the databases usually contain MORE than just data for the models themselves. Unlike construction where we try to embed every conceivable piece of information right into the model itself.

I’m Not Alone…Anymore

As I said earlier, I’ve been thinking about this for a while. I frequently question my own sanity. Perhaps not as much as those who know me. But I do none the less. So imgine my surprise when I recently came across a couple articles that reaffirmed my thoughts.

This first is this article from AEC Magazine. ‘BIM is Bust’.

https://aecmag.com/opinion/bim-is-bust-how-should-aec-data-work-hok/

The next is the ‘Data Centric Manifesto’. You can read that here…

http://datacentricmanifesto.org/need/

To summarize, enterprise data is locked inside applications (and models). It’s created there and those applications serve as the gate keeper. Yes there’s Cloud services with API’s. But the data they host and control is still application/model centric. It doesn’t integrate with your data. If you want the data, you have to integrate with it. As such, it’s application/model centric. Not enterprise centric.

How Should We Use Models?

By examining how modeling tools came to be, we can understand how those tools should be used,

That start was as a drafting and documentation tool. At it’s core, creating drawings is the act of working out design decisions and documenting them. That documentation is then used to physically build whatever it is you were designing.

As tools progressed, they offered some natural enhancements. 3d helped us visualize not just during the design process but for others who weren’t skilled at visualizing in 3d from a 2d document. Parametric functionality also helped us build smart objects which helped us quickly make derivative designs. These functions also helped increase efficiency in the design process. We lessened the need to calculate small details and merely used smart objects to help build a design. They’re really ‘Digital Pre-Fabrication’.

Here’s one example: The following image is a conveyor support. It’s top and bottom width are variable. So is it’s height and the number of cross bracing panels.

Now look at the holes on the half circular mounting plate. Look also at the holes where the cross-bracing meets. It’s not in the center. What’s the length of that steel angle anyway?

Imagine trying to calculate all of this information from purely numerical data and no geometry. It’s no small task. The number of right-triangles and trigonometry required is quite complex.

If you need to build a few of these, 3d modeling is the perfect fit. The smart objects have made it a digital measuring tool. But what if you fabricated thousands of these? All different. Copying design files and making derivatives with new sizes gets to be time consuming. And the same 5 or 6 inputs drive all of them. And eventually, some of the parts will likely be duplicate as parts from one design just “happen” to match another. And what if the design needs to change? All those models as opposed to just regenerating them.

If you wanted to build a manufacturing system around this, you need a configurator and move data OUTSIDE the model. In this case, that’s what was done.

The assembly is 100% parametrically controlled from a spreadsheet. ALL data driving the model is driven from Excel from 6 inputs. From the length of the angle and position of holes. Even the size and shape of the structural steel shapes is driven from Excel. Here’s the formula for just the length of the selected cross-brace…

So what type of software tools do we have to manage this data at the enterprise level? Sure there’s product configurators but what about you parts library? Historical models and drawings? Common reference data defining shapes and configurations? Vendors and pricing? That’s where you implement data management or PLM systems in manufacturing.

What do we do with that data in Construction? Embed it in a model. Editable only by a Revit/AutoCAD/Microstation user. Locked up and application/model centric.

If you ask me, the solution was obvious. Or so I thought.

The Solution Should be Obvious

One of our technology vendors was pushed hard from many customers like us. The ask was to handle non-model based workflows and data. Their solution? A tool to model data in the field. They built some cool tech that will be helpful in cases, it’s not what was needed or asked. The data wasn’t modeled for a reason. So we didn’t need another tool to model it.

The real solution is to build a tool that can help us manufacture and build from data. No model required. Cutting of linear materials requires very little data as an example. Other operations like purchasing or assembly can be accomplished without a model too. Which means we can procure, manage pricing and labor, and even manufacture vast amounts of parts and data all without a model. None.

If we had tools that let us build WITHOUT a model, then where a model IS required it’s very simple to generate a model and/or link a model to that data. The manufacturing and construction process would have 100% coverage because it’s based on data, not a model.

When you use a model based system, you have partial coverage. You miss all non-modeled work and introduce a second workflow and processes. Also lost are analytics to view your entire operation.

One company I know literally publishes purchased items like buckets of adhesive as generic models. This is done so they can have all work go through their “model based” system and link to an ERP. Is that really what you want? It’s yet another workaround to compensate for lacking tools.

To summarize…

If you build tools that work only with models, they’ll only work with a model.

If you build tools that work with only data, they can also use models because a model is a shortut to data.

Now all we need is someone to start building “Data” centric tools.

Digital Transformation for the Average Contractor (Part 4)

This is my 4th and last article on Digital Transformation for the average contractor. The whole point of this series was to help companies understand that they don’t need to know what the future holds to prepare for it. If you missed them, the other 3 articles can be found here…

In this article, we’ll look at an action plan. By using this plan, you can help focus your efforts.

A 5 Step Action Plan

It can help to prioritize with any effort. Because there’s a lot to do, it’s easy to get lost in all the work. Your action plan may look different and it should be if your needs are different. However, these 5 steps are a good starting point.

Step 1 – Mitigate Current Risks

You might have existing risks because of prior actions. You can only mitigating these risks if you identify them. Review what you’re currently doing because that’s likely where they are. However some risks may be due to what you’re not doing. Here’s some ideas to get you thinking….

  • Is your data backed up? Not just server data but cloud systems, machine tools, etc.
  • Are you managing user accounts in all your technology systems?
  • Do your advanced or complex configurations have documentation?
  • Is your data accurate (BIM Content, Models, Standards, etc.)?
  • Are users trained in proper processes and technology usage?
  • Do all your technologies have an “owner” or responsible party?
  • Is Staff cross trained or does your technology and processes rely on only one person?
  • Who is maintaining your standards? Is there even governance around them?
  • Are there things critical to your organization controlled by others outside your organization?
  • What things have “Single points of failure”?

Step 2 – Reduce Waste and Inefficiencies (Create Value)

Your next step is really something you likely do already. Reducing waste and inefficiency. However it’s a good idea to revisit occasionally. After you’ve documented your workflow, developed a new workflow or changed your technology. It’s good to revisit how these things impact your efficiency and drive value. Some general thoughts that can apply to most company…

  • Are users aware of how your technology should be used (training)?
  • Do you have under utilized or misused technology or processes?
  • Duplicate technology for the same purpose?
  • Are there things you do that are easily outsourced?
  • What can be automated but isn’t?
  • Do new cloud workflows represent what should happen or did you simply move your existing processes into the cloud?
  • Are your computers or hardware setup consistently, maintained proactively or built with automated processes?

Step 3 – Missed Opportunities

One area people don’t think about enough is missed opportunities. You’re always watching costs vs benefits. Results of doing things. But what’s the cost of not doing something? What’s the cost of missed opportunities? These could come in many forms. It’s best to build your own list but here’s a few examples…

  • Leverage knowledge from existing staff
  • Free or joint marketing from vendors or customers
  • Missed value you could sell if you were leading edge with technology
  • R&D opportunities with technology vendors
  • Existing competencies not marketed properly

Step 4 – Prepare for the Future

This step is really what Part 2 and Part 3 of my series was about. These are things you can do now, despite an unknown future. There’s a lot you can do right now that sets you up for success down the road. However you don’t need to wait until the first three steps are done. You can start chipping away at these now. They just shouldn’t be your primary focus until Steps 1 through 3 are well underway. Here’s a few ideas, feel free to add your own…

  • Document existing processes
  • Develop ideal workflows
  • Start building missing competencies in staff and departments
  • Restructuring existing technology stacks
  • Capture wisdom of staff nearing retirement
  • Reverse mentor older staff by tech savvy younger generation

Step 5 – New Strategic Opportunities

This step is the hardest to provide guidance on. It really depends where your company sees itself going. The skills they have can help differentiate itself in the market place from others.

Here’s were an ear to the ground can be helpful. Trying to anticipate what trends in construction may be fads vs long lasting or even transformational. How can you leverage them? How can you change your business to remain relevant? Regardless of the future, if you’ve followed all the other guidance, you should be able to easily adapt when these trends emerge.

  • Will you be a manufacturer in an “Industrialized Construction” economy?
  • Do you have staff capable of developing prefabrication or modularization strategies?
  • Are you able to be an efficient supply chain provider?
  • Can you help your customers with smart building technology?
  • Will Machine Learning or Artificial Intelligence render you obsolete or is it simply a tool you use?
  • Who are the new players in the construction economy and is there value you can bring to them?
  • How can you capitalize on the struggles of your competition?

Summary

Aside from here in Step 5, everything in this series of posts are things you can start doing right now. They’re things that don’t require a prognosticator’s view of the future. Yet they’re all things that will help you be more agile and able to adapt when trends or disruption comes knocking.

You don’t have to worry about the future to prepare for it. There’s enough to do right now that you can stop worrying. More than likely, at some point you’ll take notice and see you’re living the future. The actions and choices you’ve used to prepare you allowed you to tackle the future without even realizing it.

Make smart choices. Stay busy. Stay Relevant. You can eat the future one small bite at a time.

Adjusting Liner Lengths on Elbow Throats & Heels in CAMduct

Any sheet metal shop that CNC cuts their liner has likely configured their database to make seam adjustments in the liner developments. These settings are typically global and tell CAMduct to remove the Liner thickness from the Male or Female part of the development.

Another common setting is the compression adjustment in the Insulation Materials. These are all fairly common and self explanatory for most people looking to configure these settings.

Length Adjustments on Radius Elbows

What’s a little less obvious is how to adjust the throat and heel lengths on a radius elbow. If the liner is developed based on metal size, the throat is typically too short and the heel a little long. This is due to the bending allowance of thicker materials. While acoustic liner has a little give but when using something like armorflex for liner, it’s a little more rigid and these lengths can cause issues.

To better understand the Throat and Heel of a radius elbow, we can look at the Top view (cheek). The following image shows the Throat and Heel pointed to with arrows. You’re looking at these parts on their edge.

Prepare Your Fittings

To configure the calculation used for the liner on these parts, you first need to change an option on your ITM. The following image is for a radius elbow (CID 4). Here you’ll want to change the “Insulation Parts” Option to “Wraps Inside“. If you leave this set to the default “Same”, the adjustments made later will have no effect.

Configure Material Adjustments

To make adjustments to the liner calculation, you’ll go to the Insulation Materials and click the “Insulation Developments” button.

This will bring up a dialog where you can make changes to how the liner gets developed on the throats and heels. The various settings are as follows…

Metal Side

Throat & Heel Liner Developed to the same length as the metal fitting.

Air Side

Throat & Heel Lengths Developed Based on the AIR side of the liner thickness.

Middle

Throat & Heel length developed based on the middle of the liner thickness.

Value (Between 0.0 and 1.0)

Value is between 0 and 1 as a percentage of the liner thickness calculated from the metal side.

0 = Same as “Metal Side”
0.5 = Same as “Middle”
1.0 = Same as “Air Side”

Not All Fittings Supported

Not all fittings support the “Insulation Parts” option. You can run one of the Library export scripts that dumps all the OPTIONS to a CSV file and sort in Excel to look for the CID’s in your library that support “Insulation Parts”. Scripts can be found here.

What Does COST TYPE do on ITM Content?

When you build Autodesk Fabrication content, you may have noticed one of the properties “Cost Type“. You can see this setting is shown in the following image. 

If you do some searching online, you may run across an explanation for some but not all. As Autodesk explains in it’s online help….

  • Normal – Reads the MaterialFabrication, and Installation tables to generate costs of all materials, fabrication labor and installation labor.
  • Supply Only – Reads the Material and Fabrication tables to generate the same costs of material and fabrication but NOT installation. (You’d typically use this if you are fabricating for others outside your company.)
  • Free Issue – Reads only the Install table when calculating costs.

This leaves two remaining values that can be set. These are not documented by Autodesk. These two serve the same purpose…

  • Demolition – Used as a filter for Labor table value sets
  • Relocation – Used as a filter for Labor table value sets

Using these values would allow you to build a labor table for relocation that would include uninstall and reinstall time. You could also use the demolition value to build a labor table for removal only of an item. 

While you would think these only would apply to an install table, these filter values are also available for the fabrication table. At the very least, this opens up the possibility of using it in creative ways to serve whatever purpose you like.