CSI Project Dynamo

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1666 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 - 03:48 pm:    "CSI Announces Project Dynamo, an Industry Wide Digital Construction Initiative ALEXANDRIA, VA (May 15, 2018) - Driven by rapid change and the need to better integrate specifications, building products, and building information modeling (BIM), the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) announced CSI Project Dynamo, an initiative to expand its industry standard organizing principles to work more effectively with BIM to support the digital needs of design and construction professionals. CSI Project Dynamo is a pilot program to expand the North American MasterFormat®, Uniformat®, and Omniclass® standards for organizing construction information by creating a more robust connection between the standards and BIM objects. These standards are used by tens of thousands of AECO professionals globally, and embedded in a wide range of design and project software. CSI Board Chair, Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, said “CSI is founded on the principle of working across the spectrum of a project—from ownership, through design to construction and facility management—and serving the industry by meeting those broad and inter-connected needs. Because of this interdisciplinary approach, CSI can ensure the capabilities envisioned for this project serve the entire industry.” “The focus of the effort is to ensure that data is accurate, timely and available when and where it is needed throughout the lifecycle of a project,” added Mark Dorsey, CSI Chief Executive Officer. “CSI Project Dynamo will consult with subject-matter experts, industry associations, and Construction Specifications Canada to create the pathway towards improved workflow and better organization of information to ensure we keep pace with the rapidly evolving digital world and meet diverse industry needs.” Those interested in participating in Project Dynamo can find more information at www.CSIProjectDynamo.org." David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 857 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 02:27 pm:    When product information is imbedded in the BIM objects we need to consider how the design professional can verify that the information is proper or consistent. If the grade of a steel member is embedded in each member object how do we identify the case where somebody inserted the wrong grade. This is particularly a problem for the project engineer who is not actively using the BIM software. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 731 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 06:17 pm:    Interesting premise and initiative. Not sure about the name though. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 732 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 06:21 pm:    Ok, so i went to the form to fill out to "be involved or learn more information" and my options for who i am are: 1. Software provider 2. Data provider 3. Building Product Manufacturer Seriously, CSI doesn't offer a "Specifier" option? Sigh. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1673 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 07:16 pm:    Robin, You don't understand. CSI has been desperately trying to get away from specifiers and specifications for years. There was even talk at one time about changing the name of the organization to eliminate the word "Specifications." I vote for "BPMI" "Building Product Manufacturers Institute" since that is the bulk of our membership anyway. ;-) A "dynamo" is a device that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy much like the alternator in your car. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 477 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 07:38 pm:    also Dynamo is Autodesk's software for writing programs to interface with Revit...(like grasshopper for Rhino) so again odd choice of names. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 478 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 07:41 pm:    PS to Mark Gilligan....it's a relational database. so you can ask it questions. You don't have to look at each piece of steel you have the machine do that...and color them and display, create a schedule, check them in relation to something else like "what floor are they on"or size or anything Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 858 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 09:54 pm:    Marc This still means that somebody needs to implement a protocol whereby these questions are asked. This is a different way of working. This will further isolate the senior individuals who sign the documents from the deliverables. Ideally this will be less of a problem when the next generation of management is more familiar with these software packages. It is still not clear that this move to BIM provides benefits to the structural consultant in many instances. If this is valuable to the owner or the Contractor it is not clear that the structural consultant is being paid for the extra work. In talking with other consultants it is not clear that there are real discussions regarding the LOD that needs to be provided. This leads me to believe that nobody is using the data. Yes there is the ideal future but it is not clear how we will get there. Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 479 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2018 - 10:50 pm:    absolutely. I see your point and do not disagree for the most part. I would say that it does provide benefit..if you do it., check the model and charge for it. you should be entitled to some of the added value that right now is going to the GC and the steel fabricator. All the design and fabrication/erection crafts are being drawn closer and closer together, whether we like it or not. The contractor is currently reaping the reward partly because they can and will insure for it Right now the A/E design community gets no benefit from adding the extra info. However, the contractor often rebuilds the model from our 2D stamped documents and: 1. gets great benefit from a VALID data rich model; 2.finds many conflicts and design E and O's; 3. builds workface packages straight from the model, and reaps great rewards. To be a bit snarky....architects at least, avoid the future by saying "we're not paid for that" and "it's risky"...well architects are achieving less and less based on risk avoidance..contractors are embracing the risk, insuring for it and winning. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 859 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2018 - 01:04 pm:    I believe structural engineers using BIM should be producing structural steel shop drawings as an extra service where the fee is comparable to what the fabricator would pay for shop drawings. The problems become less when the Owner adopts a Lean Construction delivery model, think IPD on steroids. Still we should not be doing this added work if the contractor or somebody will do something with the added information. This will require more detailed discussions between the designers and the contractor regarding the information needed and the level of detail. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 868 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2018 - 10:34 am:    From what I have observed, use of LODs are limited to a certain level due to the contraints of our hardware; Div00 documents and Division 01 sections are added by legal to ensure risk is transfered to the appropriate party(s) requiring the REVIT model file(s). I have yet to meet a specifier in the US or Canada that has truly connected specs and drawings beyond generic annotations (keynotes, etc.) I started using the ConDoc keynoting system in 1990, yet there still remains resistance amoung the specifiers I work with to use the Condoc methodology (in it's simplest form) of connnecting drawings with specification section numbers. Wayne Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 480 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2018 - 11:15 am:    Most architects don't even know what an LOD is, they just "draw" till they run out of money then print. Heaven forbid they see levels of product and installation data attached to Level of Development. I agree. Full ties to specs from the model is a "yet to be" thing. it is not worth OUR time to do it. Try getting more money for linking something that you are supposed to have coordinated in the first place. This is the REAL question. WHO synchronizes the information as it will be used? The trade sub is not sitting against the wall under construction with some antiquated 3 ring binder in outline format on their knee. Until there is a business case for doing it, it will not be done no matter how many stamp their feet. When does it make someone money? And how much? Right now, most all advance in modeling and information flow is happening at the GC's office as they can, and do, make the most money with it. We should think about the "I" in information being used at the workface. What information does the sub need to do the work planned for today or this week? How can we get that information to them...next question is who does that...not the architect. The GC plans the work. THEY get the benefit of attaching information to locations where it will be used. All we get it the satisfaction that we have actually done our work and coordinated the documents sent to the GC...again that was already paid for! Yes we assemble the information at the start prior to any work. THAT must be done in a manor that allows for the GC to parse it out as needed to the workface. We should be working with the GC's to develop the means for doing that. PS I don't think the resistance is spec writers..the resistance is everyone else. If they have not used keynotes it looks like just so many numbers...I will not re-voice all the arguments pro and con keynotes here. I have about a 50/50 success on having keynotes used on the dwgs at my current job. I find that few specifiers have control over the drafting/modeling staff. Supposedly I have some control over the use of such and I have only the aforesaid 50/50 so.... Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 146 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2018 - 11:25 pm:    So I must be one of the few missing links out there. I actually have connected Revit to generate specification sections. I say have because after about a year and a dozen of specs generated, I realized that the process was a failure. There were a lot of reasons why it failed, and several reasons why it lasted as long as it did. That was 5 years ago and I haven't missed it at all. That's not to say specifications are not integral to my BIM template. They are. I have the benefit of managing the template and the office spec master and I take every opportunity to let them compliment eachother outside of using a third party software solution. I'll try to give additional info tomorrow if anyone is interested. Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 148 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2018 - 11:36 pm:    By the way....Hopefully Dynamo is just a temporary name because I was actually using the Autodesk Dynamo tool today to manage some of my materials in Revit. Besides the legal implications, it would just be plain confusing to Architects. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 877 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 - 12:49 am:    Also confusing to soccer fans. Dynamo is Moscow's Russian Premier League football team. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1043 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 - 08:43 am:    And the name of the professional soccer team in Houston. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 149 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 - 09:29 am:    So a couple of thoughts on why it worked and didn't work for our architecture firm using Revit. Reasons why it worked... 1) Our firm did generally similar work from project to project. 2) We had a very robust Revit template that already had 90% of the content required to design a project. 3) We basically outlawed all outside content from being brought into the model. Key issue which most experienced BIM managers prefer! 4) I was managing the specs and Revit model so it was easy to coordinate between "departments" in my head. Reasons why it didn't work... 1) e-Specs required more time to manage (glitches, crashes, spec updates, etc) then it saved us by auto-generating the sections and a basic level of content in each section. 2) Revit Instanced Based vs Type Based Parameters. This is a huge issue and takes a ton of coordination to understand what info you can and cannot pull out of a model. 3) Non-modeled content. 4) Figuring out what to spec is so much easier than understanding how that same item is being specifically used on the project. Not many solutions to this issue available. 5) Gathering Data from Detail Components is complicated by the fact that Revit doesn't Phase 2D elements or understand which 2D elements haven't been placed on sheets which means it can't reliably manage the embedded data built into them. 6) Switched firms to a firm that used BSD Speclink. I took the institutional knowledge of how to integrate e-Specs with me when I left. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1496 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2018 - 01:19 pm:    Just to add some clarification... This is just a project--not a product (yet). The name "Project Dynamo" is a project name and will not be permanent (similar to the codenames that Microsoft gives its products during development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_codenames). Although the options for roles listed only the three previously mentioned, specifier has been added. There is also a field for entering other roles not listed. A wide group of user feedback is desired. This project is in the very early stage of development and is focused on information gathering. This will guide the process through further refinement that will lead to a specific scope and eventually a product. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com JasonUrquhart (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 01:31 pm:    I'm looking to connect BIM with costing, embodied and operational carbon, performance criteria and work results. Has there been any news about "Project Dynamo" since may? Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 481 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 02:02 pm:    nope, none I've seen George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 884 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 04:17 pm:    It's not about the product, it's about the promise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHbKgA9mENw Questions: How many of you find this video inspiring? How many of you view it with dismay? How does Institute view this premise? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1518 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 04:32 pm:    George, interesting video. That is the premise that CSI is working on...we have the concept/idea, but the products are not there yet, as I stated back in May. This is not something that will happen overnight. It will require a lot of involvement of other players in the AEC industry (not just CSI) to make things happen. And when things do begin to happen, it will be progressive: starting small and moving to bigger things. BTW, CSI does have an advisory group assisting them. Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Marc Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 482 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, October 19, 2018 - 04:52 pm:    the video was fine."put the idea first"..I would ask is there a "WHY" in CSI proposal. I'm not finding the why AND for that matter the idea is fuzzy. A b"I"m is full of information! It is not, at it's core a separate thing from spec "I"nformation. It is NOT just geometry (3D), it can also be estimating and scheduling and as many "Ds" as you can think of. Why do I need a new way of making a "more robust connection between the standards and BIM objects." So the why is to make sure to reuse old standards and standards that have never really found a home (omniclass)? I told Greg C. years ago that Omniclass was a great solution looking for a "killer app" that needed it..well I for one am still looking. Omniclass is a product it is not a why or an idea. PS Ron, what is the idea? That we need a connection? That we need to use a numbering system to make a connection? that we need some cute new software to make a connection? sorry perhaps in person we could talk and I'd get the point. there are a million ways to make a BIM that includes all the information we currently call a "spec" A BIM....IS INFORMATION hyperlinks in bluebeam = a BIM. a valid Revit model and Navisworks associating the Revit model with other software = a BIM a relational database of photos and maintenance manuals = a BIM