Ten Years of IFC Development Why are we not yet...

Ten Years of IFC Development Why are we not yet there?

Arto KiviniemiResearch Professor

ICT for Built EnvironmentVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

IAI International Technical Management Committee Chairman

Ten Years of IFC Development - Arto Kiviniemi 2

VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND

International Alliance for Interoperability• Founded in 1994 as the Industry Alliance for

Interoperability• 12 members: AT&T, Archibus, Autodesk, Carrier, HOK,

Honeywell, Jaros Baum & Bolles, LBNL, Primavera, Softdesk, Timberline, and Tishman

• First international meeting in London, May 1996• 7 chapters in 1996: French Speaking, German Speaking,

Japan, Nordic, North America, Singapore, UK• Since 1997 5 new chapters: Australasia, China, Iberia,

Italia, Korea



International Alliance for Interoperability• Vision

• Old: To enable software interoperability in the AEC/FM industry.

• Improving communication, productivity, delivery time, cost, and quality throughout the whole building life cycle.

• Mission• Providing a universal basis for process improvement and

information sharing in the construction and facilities management industries.

• Goal• Building on the collective knowledge of the global

construction and facilities management industries to define Industry Foundation Classes - IFC


Some reminders of the past…

5IAI

1999

SHAREDPROJECTMODEL

With IFC

StructuralEngineer

Architect

CivilEngineer

HVACEngineer

BuildingOwner

ControlsEngineer

FacilitiesManager

Constr.Manager

StructuralEngineer

Architect

CivilEngineer

HVACEngineer

BuildingOwner

ControlsEngineer

FacilitiesManager

Constr.Manager

Now

Vision: an Integrated Project ModelGoal: Continuous maintenance of project data through to building managementWay: Building information rather than drawing data to integrate disciplines



Promise of Fast Implementation• One of the drivers to start IAI was the slow progress of

the development of STEP for AEC industry• "The IFC object-based technology, which the Industry

Alliance members are demonstrating in Autodesk's booth, will be implemented in real applications by both our industry and third-party application developer partners worldwide during the next 12 months," said Ian Howell, director of AEC industry marketing for Autodesk. "This could make the ideal of global interoperability with shared information through-out the building life cycle a reality by next year's A/E/C SYSTEMS show.“ - Autodesk, June 5th 1995

• First products with IFC 1.5.1 support published in 1999

7IAI

1999

Market share of IFC Support in Europe

NemetschekAutodeskGraphisoftsoftTECHacadGraphRIBIEZMinicadSonstige 1

DATAQUEST

Others

Rasso Steinmann, ISG Chairman 1999

IAI1999

IFC Release 2.0Scope

Architecture extensionsHVAC systemsCode checkingCost estimatingFM - Occupant move mgmt., property mgmt.General purpose networksExternal document references

Schedule 28 months Dec 1996 - Mar 1999Budget

Member contribution $2.5M (estimated)IAI hard costs $385K

Completion April 1999

Delivered on scheduleDelivered on schedule

IAI1999

IFC Release 3.0Scope

More architecturePower and lighting systemsPlumbingStructural systemsConstruction management

Scheduling, temporary constructionMore code checkingMore facilities management

Maintenance, area measure, system mgmt.Referencing libraries on the web

Schedule 30 months Jan 1998 - July 2000Budget

Member contribution $5.0M (estimated)IAI hard costs $500K (estimated)

Changed into IFC 2x (2000),2x2 (2003) and 2x3 (2006)

Changed into IFC 2x (2000),2x2 (2003) and 2x3 (2006)



Relation to ISO STEP• “Industry Foundation Classes are an open definition that

will be STEP compliant as STEP standards are defined.” - Autodesk, June 5th 1995

• Liaison status 1997, MoU in June 1998• ISO PAS 16739 status for IFC 2x Platform, October 2005

• Harmonization is still an open question• STEP NWI 241: “Generic model for lifecycle support of

AEC facilities”• Competitor for IFCs or the appropriate mapping target?

• IAI priorities:• Keep IFC the same, moving forward with continuity and

not requiring changes in the current implementations• Seek with the minimum of resources without disturbing

priority one, to get 16739 ISO logo


Constant problems in IAI…



Lack of Funding• Very small international budget

• Currently USD 100,000-150,000 per year• Too few people working seriously in IFC development

• One administrative person and some technical people are paid part time

• 30% of the technical work paid, 70% contributed• Ad-hoc extensions

• Who ever can provide project funding to the core group• No clear roadmap or priorities• Some duplicated or overlapping definitions

• Nobody is paid for the implementation support• Implementation and certification meetings are the only

activity



Focus, Marketing and Quality• Focus of the work in IAI

• The focus has been totally in the development of specification, but the meaningful issue for the industry is the implementation to interoperable software tools

• Marketing of specification features• Focusing on the new features in new versions of IFC

specification - although only a fraction of the existing features has been implemented

• Implementation quality• Urgent need for certified products and lack of resources

led to very simple certification tests• Implementation quality is not sufficient for real projects

Impression: “IFC model is no good”



IFC Exchange Test• IAI Forum Denmark, Apr 2006• The import and export of the

applications was checked using:• Geometry, simple and

complex• Object Type• Composite Wall• Relations to openings and

other walls• Properties, e.g. name and

material type• Conclusion:

• The certification does not prove that the import and export will work without problems even in a simple model



Lack of Up-to-date Information• IFC compliant software at buildingSMART web-site

• “At the moment a new database is under development, which contains IFC-compliant software. This will be published here, soon.” Last modified 2006-02-20

• Broken links, missing information• Crucial implementation information not available

• Only IFC 2.0 view definitions and implementation agreements available on the BLIS web site

• From other versions only 2006 implementation agreements available on the ISG web site

• Skills/Training• Links to an empty web-site



Information of Real IFC Projects• Although modeling is increasing

rapidly only very few real projects have used IFCs

• Even fewer IFC projects (11) have been documented internationally:

• GSA - a mega property agency• ‘One-shop non-stop’ in Singapore• US Coast Guard commits to data

sharing through IFCs• Digbeth College of Further Education,

Birmingham, UK• Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany• A pharmaceutical company uses IFCs

in its Helsinki regional HQ • Hospital project in Norway realizes

value through an IFC approach • KOSDIC in Korea • A new opera house for Copenhagen • HUT600 case study

Last modified 2005-06-28



Dec

isio

n to

“free

ze”t

he

mod

el

Confusion from Different Releases

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

IFC 1.0IFC 1.5

IFC 1.5.1IFC 2.0

IFC 2x Final

IFC 2x2 Final

IFC 2x3IFC 2x2 Addendum 1

IFC 2x Addendum 1

IFC 2x3G

8 participants in the process 3)

11+4 SW products, support ended in 2006 1)

23+8 SW products, support ended in 2006 2)

10+4 SW products 1)

?? SW products

Sources:1) ISG web-site, last update January 20032) BLIS web-site3) ISG report, March 2003

Jan Dec Jul Apr Oct

Originally 2x2 Add 2

Including GIS extension


Some Changes in IAI…



Change of the Focus• buildingSMART

• New marketing brand in 2005• More focus into processes and use of the models

• IDM (Information Delivery Manual)• Effort to define information content for data exchange

based on the industry processes• Lead in Norway

• MVD (Model View Definitions)• Effort to document the data exchange content based on

the software and IFC properties• Lead in Finland

- VIRTUAL BUILDING LABORATORY - Jiri Hietanen

The Larger Picture

IFC Model Specification

IFC Implementations

Process Map

IFC Model View Definitions

Exchange Requirements

MVD

IDM

- VIRTUAL BUILDING LABORATORY - Jiri Hietanen

MVD Summary

• Finding a useful balance between the wishes of users/customers and the possibilities of software developers, and documenting the outcome clearly.– “Predictable interoperability experience”

• Following IFC Model View Definitions should be the easiest way to implement IFC support in software


Situation in the Industry…



AEC/FM Branch Problems• Very fragmented industry

• For example, in EU (statistics 2000):• 11 million jobs, 2 million companies• 93% of companies less than 10 employees• Only 100 companies with more that 2000 employees

• Nobody wants to sponsor “common” development• No “process owners”

• Systemic innovations = changes affecting several participants very difficult to make. Who gets the benefits?

• Change adverse attitudes• 2D drafting still dominating practice• Moving from manual drafting to CAD took 10 years• Moving from 2D-CAD to modeling is more difficult• Nobody wants to be the “guinea pig”



Examples of National Activities 1/2• Finland has been one of the first countries adopting IFCs

• National Programs: VERA 1997-2002, SARA 2003-2007• 10+ pilot projects by Senate Properties since 2001• ProIT 2002-2005 by Confederation of Finnish Construction

Industry, wide adoption by the contractors• VBE - Virtual Building Environments project (VTT & TUT)

• Singapore has actively developed the use of IFC in the Corenet project since 1997

• Main focus in the Code Checking• Norway has been very active since 2005

• Information Delivery Manual (IDM)• Funding also IFC 2x2G (GIS extension of IFCs)• Some pilot projects: New Akershus Hospital, Statsbygg,

University College in Tromsø• www.buildingSMART.no



Examples of National Activities 2/2• Australia CRC Construction Innovation

• Large national program, 2001-2007, AUD 64 million, additional 7 year funding application in process

• Active communication and education• Strong connection to IFCs; CSIRO implementations• Several IFC pilot projects starting; Sydney Opera House

• USA; several activities started recently• General Service Administration (GSA) BIM/IFC

requirement announced in 2003, effective in 2007• US Army Corps of Engineers and US Coast Guard • National BIM standard initiative

• China made IFC2x as a national standard• IFC based collaborative design projects proposed in 11th

National Five Year Plan• Energy analysis collaboration with LBNL

Final project evaluation report available atFinal project evaluation report available athttp://www.stanford.edu/group/4D/download/c1.htmlhttp://www.stanford.edu/group/4D/download/c1.html

Martin Fischer and Calvin Kam / CIFE - Stanford University

First Real Project Using IFC: HUT-600

First Real Project Using IFC: HUT-600

First real project using IFC data exchange, 2001-2002

Main product model applications, information sharing examples, and experiences learned in the HUT-600 projectMiddleware and internal database are omitted

© Fischer&Kam, CIFE/Stanford University



Only one participantused BIM

BIM used only in onephase of the project

BIM used in allphases of the project

All participantsused BIM

Canthia

VTT, DigitaloHU, Animal HospitalTorikatu 36, Oulu

Upinniemi, Central Warehouse

Didacticum

TUT, AdministrationTietotalo 2, OuluHUT-600

Aurora 2Helsinki Music Centre

BIM/IFC Projects of Senate Properties

Senate Propertieswill start

demandingBIM in 2007

Senate Propertieswill start

demandingBIM in 2007



Several World-class SW Products in Finland

Tocoman

Progman

Tekla

Solibri

Granlund

The Use of RFID

Enterprixe Model Server

Site

Reporting

Factories:Precast Elements

Windows



Current BIM & IFC Potential• Robust modeling software exists

• No reason to postpone use of modeling• Learning the new methods and possibilities takes time

• Business cases based on IFC exchange exist• Architectural, structural, HVAC and electrical design• Design integration• Energy and comfort simulation• Lighting simulation• LCA and LCC analysis• Model and design checking• Quantity take-off Cost Estimation• Spatial management



Model Servers• File based data exchange is not a feasible solution

• Large models; cumbersome in small changes• Different structure and content; round trip impossible• No control of the ownership of the data• No revision control

• Need for model repositories; model servers• Partial model exchange• Each software communicates with relevant data only• Access to shared data; user-rights based on roles• Revision control on object or even attribute level



Internalwithin own

organization

External& Internal

all domains capability

multiple domains capability

multiple domains capability

one domain capability

19%

VBE Levels (n=16):

6%

0

0

Audit Findings - VBE2 partners, Nov 2005

12%

12%

25%

25%

Com

pani

es w

ithou

t spe

cial

mod

elin

g &

ICT

expe

rtise

(44%

)Compan

ies w

ith sp

ecial

Modeling &ICT ex

pertise

(56%

)



Myth:Myth: The use of IFCs is not growing; it will wither and dieThe use of IFCs is not growing; it will wither and dieReality:Reality: Customer enthusiasm is limited, but growing Customer enthusiasm is limited, but growing Reality:Reality: Customers are confused about the actual offerings Customers are confused about the actual offerings

Trough ofTrough ofDisillusionmentDisillusionment

Slope ofSlope ofEnlightenmentEnlightenment

Plateau ofPlateau ofProductivityProductivity

TimeTime

TechnologyTechnologyTriggerTrigger

Peak ofPeak ofInflatedInflatedExpectationsExpectations

VisibilityVisibility

Hype Cycle: Myths/Realities

?



Conclusions: Cons• Totally unrealistic expectations in the IAI

• Shoestring budget for an extensive technical work• Making demonstrations is different than delivering real

commercial applications• Technology is the easy part, human factors are much

more difficult• Constant focus on the development of IFC

specification has been detrimental• Advertising the “next improved version”, constant new

versions and lack of relevant information have delayed the implementation

• IFC is not an “end-user product”; emphasis on complex technology issues is a wrong message



Conclusions: Cons• Lack of real quality control in the certification• No ability or will in IAI to expand the work to utilize

external resources efficiently • Some R&D funding is available but difficult or impossible

to “export”• No real market drivers

• No demand for the IFCs before companies move to modeling

• Uncertainty: Implications in the processes and business?• Difficult to prove the benefits for end-users• Is this a zero-sum game; who wins and who loses?• Business case for SW vendors; does IFC support really

affect the sales?

Research potential



Conclusions: Pros• IFC specification provides basis for implementation

• Content is more than sufficient for many business cases• Expandability (property sets and proxy objects ) gives

flexibility• Development of the model servers, model checkers and

quantity take-off applications hardly possible without IFCs• Creating market and changing culture is possible

• Modeling is emerging rapidly demand for data sharing• Finland, Singapore and Norway good examples of the

effects of focused efforts and national investments• GSA’s announcement affected the market in US• Senate Properties planning a similar demand in 2007• Skanska Residential Nordic only accepts modeling



Lessons Learned• Concentrate on use and implementation quality

• “Use what is already there”• Certification must ensure quality for end-users

• Don’t think that IFC is a prerequisite for modeling• Moving into modeling provides internal benefits without

interoperability, modeling competences are crucial• Not too many changes at one time; small steps• Start data sharing with “useful minimum”

• Include as many people as possible• People accept a change only if they feel involved

• Publish the success stories • Try to identify benefits even if you cannot measure them• “Envy and fear” are powerful drivers for change


After ten years we are not yet there

Nevertheless, we have come a long way and

finally some progress is visible in the industry

Ten Years of IFC Development Why are we not yet...

Documents

Transcript of Ten Years of IFC Development Why are we not yet...