PDA

View Full Version : CPIC.



beegee
2004-10-23, 01:15 AM
In a recent article on The Builder Owner as a Catalyst for Change in the Construction Industry (http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/issue_9.htm) I came across this reference to T5 and the Code of Practice for Production Information (CPIC ) (http://www.productioninformation.org/final/contents.html)



At a cost of £4.2 billion, Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport in London, currently under construction, represents a huge program of construction works. The project owner, BAA (British Airports Authority), recognized at the outset that the risk associated with such a huge infrastructure project, coupled with the sheer complexity and scale of work involved, required a fresh approach to the way the project was to be managed if it was to be built on time and within budget. It devised a solution in the T5 Agreement.

The T5 Agreement is the legally binding contract between BAA and its key suppliers. Described as groundbreaking, it is unique in the construction industry. Through the agreement, BAA accepts that it carries all of the risk for the construction project. With this burden removed from contractors and suppliers, it enables everyone working on T5 to:
· focus on determining the cause of problems, not the effects if they happen
· work in truly integrated teams in a successful, if uncertain, environment
· focus on proactively managing risk rather than avoiding litigation

BAA has set itself a target to reduce the cost and program uncertainty associated with building procurement. "This is being achieved in large part by creating a single 3D computer model that BAA and its project partners will use to design, build and ultimately maintain the terminal building," explains Andrew Manington, BAA's T5 Production Support Manager. "To do this, the project team had to agree to use a common set of technology applications and to create a single building information model which coordinates the work of various design disciplines."

Lessons learned at T5 are being disseminated to the rest of industry. The Construction Project Information Committee has published the Code of Practice for Production Information (http://www.productioninformation.org/final/contents.html) (CPIC), which contains the processes and protocols developed for T5. The process is scalable, so that small organizations can take advantage of it too. The code is aimed at the 2D majority with the objective of making it easier for them to advance to 3D.






I haven’t finished reading it all yet, and as stated a lot of it relates to 2D CAD production, nevertheless, its worth looking at.

richard.binning
2004-10-26, 02:48 PM
About the T5 agreement....

Through the agreement, BAA accepts that it carries all of the risk for the construction project. With this burden removed from contractors and suppliers, it enables everyone working on T5 to:
· focus on determining the cause of problems, not the effects if they happen
· work in truly integrated teams in a successful, if uncertain, environment
· focus on proactively managing risk rather than avoiding litigation


What is really new and news worthy is the idea that the owner would take on all the responsibility. After all, this concept of "Single Source, Single Responsibility" is exactly what certain "Integrated Design Builders" have been doing for a number of years as part of their standard agreements. Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the idea of owners taking on this responsibility. If we can combine that mentality with an owner stated demand for an intelligent Building Model as part of the project requirements, then we might all be able to finally move past the flatland and truly embrace BIM or Virtual Building or whatever acronym we can all agree on.

Wanderer
2004-10-26, 04:11 PM
Why then, aren't more building owners demanding better interoperability? I contend that the majority of building owners do not realize that they have the power to eliminate this waste and its associated cost burden.
It's all a matter of who has the power. I realize that 'we' as an end-user have the power to demand this, as well as the importance of doing so, but, unfortunately, the ones with the power to enforce it aren't as well-informed, nor willing to become so. (I think it's because they play golf with the guys who own the companies who are still using r14, why force 'them' to spend all this money to buy revit or building systems? gah!)


Poor communication and maintenance of 'as built' data, communications failures, inadequate standardization, and inadequate oversight during each life cycle phase culminate in downstream costs
ding! ding! ding! amen, brother, preach it!!!

interesting article, thanks for sharing.