What am I looking at, a few aspects of the project statistics used:
- Two years of data
- Data was collected from the end of the project
- All problems were expected to have been solved
- Around sixteen separate contractors provided files
- There were around seventeen "BIM Coordinator" positions were responsible to enforce the standards
- Only one coordinator "batch processed" NAVIS coordination models using automation, i.e. dependency on correct file syntax
- File Naming standards were contractually documented
- File naming syntax was not enforced, there were no consequences
- The Coordinators, trades and others defined their own "standards"
- To be categorized as "Good" the file syntax had to adhere to the "standard" in use by the majority
- 5068 files used in report
The files were AutoCAD based(56%), Revit Based(7%), and Navis Cache files(37%).
66% of the files were considered complaint, 34% were not.
Four trades were responsible for the majority on non compliant files. One trade (H) appears to have not been sure which standard they would use.
The majority of the issues shown above are related to spelling, "syntax", delimiter and field characters out of position. In addition around 30 separate types of errors were observed indicating lack of quality control process.
Understand the final collection of files studied here show the final completed project. Tens of files per day were exchanged between trade and coordinators for years. In order to reduce the manpower required to quality control so many files the process can and should be automated.
Automation and batch processing thousands of files requires rules be followed, exceptions kept to a minimum, and a degree of flexibility be designed into the "rules". Failure to do so drives up the cost and effectiveness of automation.