I am amazed at the iconic nature of bridges today and the inspiration they give even everyday people when they look at them. Going beyond just being a way for traffic to flow from one side of a travel barrier to another, they now stir a similar feeling as those looking at a very tall or iconic building — a symbol for the city or a region. Given some of the modern shapes and designs being asked to be built today, they are also truly challenging engineering feats, pushing the limits of design and construction.

The Brooklyn Bridge is a prime example of an iconic bridge. It is one of the 19th century's greatest engineering accomplishments — in a century of heroic civil engineering. There is no doubt that this forerunner to the Golden Gate Bridge was one of the most incredible civil engineering accomplishments certainly of its day and even now amongst so many others. At the time, it was the longest suspension bridge in the world. Its piers were taller than any building in New York City — except the slender Trinity Church steeple. It used a revolutionary new technology: woven steel cables. Along with other breakthrough civil structures completed in the 19th century, the Brooklyn Bridge connected the country and helped lay the foundation for U.S. economic successes in the 20th century. It changed peoples’ ideas of what a bridge is or what it could do — literally bringing people together.

Civil engineers are now engaged in designing a new series of bridges, ones that will redefine civil engineering and construction for the next half century or more — and I am not talking about those in need of desperate repair being targeted by stimulus money. With the goal of bringing people together, these new bridges are meant to span the chasm in design information and process that exists between the civil engineer creating deliverables for regulatory approval and the information that contractors need to construct what the engineer designed. This bridge will carry a different kind of traffic — the model-based design data that forms the basis of civil infrastructure projects supported by a building information modeling (BIM) workflow. BIM is an integrated, collaborative process that enables engineers, architects, contractors, and clients to work from a virtual single digital project model so they can share reliable, coordinated information at every stage of a project lifecycle, from design through construction and ultimately into operations and maintenance.

Model-based information, which spans projects, companies, and extended enterprises, including their supply chains, is becoming standard in many parts of the world. Until now, the design data created by civil engineers has been somewhat isolated and fragmented from the rest of the project team — not unlike land masses isolated by waterways. What they created very often would not move across to the contractors, nor was it intended to do so. Contractors were expected to create their own sets of information separate from the engineer.

This gap till now had no bridge — one that could enable the rich design information to cross over to the construction phase let alone address the legal framework by which it could happen. The best that could be done in dealing with data created with incompatible file formats between design and construction teams was to take rich 3D design information and flatten it down to 2D electronic files or paper to hand off to the construction teams. For the most part, all of that rich information is lost to a series of documents focused on getting regulatory approval rather than the most efficient way of constructing the design. Additionally, the ability for the contractors to impart their years, if not decades, of construction knowledge into the design process was not previously possible since many designers never knew which contractor would be selected to do the construction. And even if they did, there was really no interface in the design process where contractors could plug in.

This has lead to a very inefficient and liability-ridden process sometimes costing as much as 15 to 20 percent of a project. In many instances, when design data moves to the next step, the richness that was created is stripped down to simple graphics. When it’s passed on to another contributor on the project, someone must recreate all of the design data again, and given the complexity of some large projects, mistakes can be made. Like the people and vehicles stuck on one side of a river without a bridge, design data that doesn’t move freely can't fully contribute to value creation downstream or on the other side.

The new necessity: Integrated project workflow
A new project requirement is emerging — integrated project workflow. It's being driven by a number of realities. Civil engineering projects are becoming larger, more complex, with shorter schedules, accompanied by the need for better analysis and visualization for approaches such as sustainable design. Today, more disciplines and organizations are involved earlier in the process, including city planners, GIS professionals, architects, contractors/developers, and facilities managers. To keep projects moving, they all need to share design data easily, efficiently, and in a timely fashion. In addition, clients are demanding lifecycle management. This creates many great opportunities downstream for the civil engineers’ information, such as facilities coordinators, work crews, subcontractors, and suppliers who need rich, interactive data at their point of work to do their jobs more effectively.

The need for an integrated workflow leveraging BIM begins with creating and revising designs, whether an owner wants something different or for the process of looking at multiple sustainable design options. This information then needs to flow seamlessly to civil engineering project teams that are designing subdivisions, sites, roads, sewers, drainage, and other projects. In addition, it needs to go to architects who are designing buildings for these projects. To complete the workflow process, models must flow seamlessly and easily to downstream users such as heavy contractors utilizing GPS machine control — in formats that work for them. Enter integrated project delivery (IPD).

Civil engineering, heavy construction, and IPD
IPD stems from current challenges facing the design and construction industry, and the need for a more holistic view and understanding of the project from three key perspectives — the designer, the contractor, and more importantly the owner. Most of the work today around IPD has been in the private sector, where owners have more control and less rigid regulations about how they approach projects. However, with proper education, the same benefits could be easily realized from public infrastructure owners’ perspective. But that requires administrative changes and a rethinking of the decades-old mantra: “We’ve always done it this way.”

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) defines IPD as “a project delivery approach that integrates people, systems, business structures, and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction.” The definition should resonate with all design professionals because of the fact that on all infrastructure projects, just like with buildings, clear communication and understanding of the project by all team members is critical to a successful project and its completion on time and within budget. IPD does not belong only in the realm of the architect, and although they have championed it in recent years, some of its origins reside in civil engineering.

IPD is based on the same principles as Australia-based project alliancing — a framework that allows project contributors to focus on the design problem, rather than litigation prevention — taking the approach of mitigating issues first and foremost, not litigating them. It was created in response to large complex infrastructure projects where the complexity and duration of the project made it impossible to calculate the risk and liability. Often today, when an owner sits down with the members of his or her project team, they view them as a group of potential litigants versus a collaborative team. This is partly driven by industry history and past experiences, but also by no one discipline truly “knowing” all the intricacies of a project and having a holistic view of the project. In fact, many seated at the table don’t have the perspective of what is required for successful project execution across all disciplines and how their decision may impact others. They only understand it from their unique perspective. Designing with models, and using a BIM workflow to facilitate discussion on the design, are critical components to changing this dynamic. BIM is a technology process, whereas IPD is a behavioral process and allows teams the legal umbrella and framework to foster better collaboration and set the stage for more efficient design and construction process overall.

Within pockets of the civil engineering community, interest has been growing around understanding IPD and how it can be leveraged with transportation, environmental, and land development projects. Professional organizations such as the AIA and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) have championed this from the vertical construction side (buildings), but more civil engineering firms are looking at the progress and wondering if they could benefit. The answer is yes. Take a look at some of the aspects of how IPD can be of value to the civil engineering and heavy construction markets.

BIM-supported IPD: Where 1 + 1 = 3
Better collaboration on designs by all team members (designers, contractors, and owners) during all the phases (planning, preliminary, and detailed design) is needed, not just simple coordination. By doing so, the requests for information (RFIs), associated change orders, and general errors and omissions are reduced through early detection and better understanding of conflicts and the ability to resolve them before construction.

There are many causes, and none are intentional, but one key contributing factor is digging and processing through hundreds, if not thousands, of sheets of paper and millions of bits of information looking for conflicts or missing information or even transposed numbers. The task is daunting, and most of the time it is nearly impossible to make error proof regardless of the number of quality assurance cycles. Tight timelines and strict budgets exacerbate the problem. Factor in a change in design scope and it multiplies the challenge dramatically, maybe even exponentially.

Paper, while still the standard of practice, results in complex 3D designs being put into the most rudimentary set of graphics possible — lines, arcs, circles, and text — essentially stripping all the intelligence away that could identify errors or design conflicts. Paper deliverables are mostly for regulatory approval and are inefficient in providing understanding of design project parameters and articulating them to the wider team for conflict mitigation, among other purposes. Paper plans are viewed best by those who created them, and are difficult to read by other disciplines, let alone by a project owner. To do things the same way and expect a different result each time is not logical thinking, and to do things differently means the process requires something better than paper.

This is where BIM comes in. BIM is not required by IPD, though many IPD contracts today include it because of its enabling capability for design collaboration. It is a convergence of tools, computing power, knowledge requirements, and the need to do things smarter, more cost effective, and more efficiently. This technology process helps enable rethinking of the behavioral process toward IPD to provide more predictable, accurate, and responsible outcomes. BIM or IPD are great improvements on the process by themselves, however, neither can achieve full success in collaboration without the synergy provided in combination with the other.

Civil engineers are beginning to create a new generation of bridges, linking previously isolated segments of survey, GIS, design, and construction. The key now is to not stop but keep extending those bridges to other disciplines on a project team, making these connections not only longer but also wider. The payoffs, in terms of cycle time improvement, reduced costs, and better results, will be substantial.

How will civil engineers and heavy contractors respond?
Some engineers have stated, “We have been doing this for a while already — we just didn’t name it this,” and, “This is what design-build is all about.” While I agree that some of the principles such as collaboration — designers and contractors working closer together sharing, albeit, 2D information — are similar and a very good start, it really only touches on the true intent of IPD and what the project could be. Key to both what the AIA and AGC have promoted is that the most fundamental core principles of IPD continue to be organization and leadership, fostered by mutual trust and respect. When compared with design-build, for example, IPD includes the owner, has formal legal arrangements, and set organizational and leadership requirements that are rarely included in design-build agreements

There is no doubt that trust and respect are critical to both design-build and IPD. But many who are familiar with IPD agree that it goes well beyond design-build. In addition to the above, other main differentiators included in the IPD contracts are mutual benefit and reward requirements and mandates of open communication and data sharing, as well as early and ongoing involvement of all key participants including the owner. These principles are recognized as the true differentiators that separate IPD from other project alliancing methods that have come before it.

Summary
Civil engineers and heavy contractors, along with architects and other professional specialists, are responding to owners’ demands by adopting new processes, establishing collaborative partnerships, and utilizing new technologies. In today’s economy, no one is immune to challenges faced with inefficient project processes, and all must tackle competitive pressure. Our ability to produce cost-effective, high-quality designs and finish construction projects with fewer mistakes is where the industry needs to go. Architectural and building construction companies are starting to respond by considering the opportunities offered by more collaborative business models such as IPD — and so should the civil engineering and heavy construction companies.

Overall, this will be an evolutionary process. IPD does not remove the need for designers to stamp, sign, or seal their work. Instead, it helps establish that the project’s design has been vetted to a much higher degree, not just within that designer’s discipline, but also in how it will impact the other disciplines and best approaches for efficient construction. The result is a much clearer and cleaner set of deliverables that are of great value to the process and the owner in the end. IPD in the short term may still be mostly seen in the private sector where owners are singular in nature and control the whole process, but over time we will see this migrate into the public sector as the benefits are as important to them as well. These business process and data bridges must be built, and when they are, in a different way they will again be iconic bridges of civil engineering effort in their own right, just like the Brooklyn Bridge of the last century.

Terry D. Bennett, PLS, LLS, LPF, LEED AP, is the senior industry manager for Civil Engineering and Construction Solutions for in Autodesk’s Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) Division. He has worldwide responsibility for the company’s industry strategy and relations in the areas of land/environmental planning, land surveying, civil engineering, and construction. Bennett has also been a practicing professional consultant for the last 26 years, and was a company manager for a civil engineering, geotechnical, and land surveying firm. He can be contacted at terry.bennett@autodesk.com.