10 July 2009

Google Wave and project collaboration

I wrote on 29 May 2009 about Google Wave, and have just got round to reading a great post by my friend and fellow Be2camp co-founder Jodie Miners where she talks about Google Wave and its potential for project collaboration in the construction sector. Read her post here.

Like me, she reckons that Wave is unlikely to replace construction project-specific document management systems for major projects, but reckons it could be used to manage small projects, and perhaps to improve management of meetings, form processing and photo management. She also talks about the Incite product Keystone (see my post), and its potential to place photos in context on floor plans. Jodie also usefully links to some other articles on the same topic before concluding with some thoughts regarding construction use of social media (I am a bit more positive about how AEC professionals are adopting Web 2.0, but we still have a long way to go! - see my pwcom2.0 post earlier this week) and the potential use of Google Wave in facilities management. I look forward to her 'new Wave' thoughts: a 'part 2' is promised for some future date.

Collaboration vendors unveil (old) plans for deeper interoperability

NCCTP new logo Last month, members of the UK-based Network for Construction Collaboration Technology Providers (NCCTP) announced plans to provide greater integration between their different applications (see news release). At the time, I was too busy to write about it, but the topic cropped up briefly in conversation with the Incite guys (post) recently, so I've had another look.

To be honest, the "new plans outlined by the NCCTP members" are nothing new. Ever since it was founded in 2003, the NCCTP has had a long-term vision of achieving real-time integration - so this latest "news" is simply a reiteration of that objective.

However, its members struggled to reach even the intermediate step of creating a useful export/import standard that would allow information and metadata to be switched from one member's system to another. I represented my former employer BIW Technologies at numerous NCCTP meetings at which progress towards the data exchange standard was debated ad nauseum (see Evening, Standard?), with BIW and Aconex finally giving up on the initiative last year. Far from being the claimed 'confidence builder', given the different architectures of the vendors' applications and their varying levels of process complexity, it was only possible to achieve a lowest common denominator standard, and, in many instances, whenever data needed to be transferred a considerable amount of work was still required.

Reaching the next level, which would allow users to use their favourite application as an interface to retrieve and interact with information stored in a different system (thus avoiding the need to retrain on different systems), remains - to me, at least - some way off.

Why? Well, for a start, the NCCTP now only represents a minority of the vendors active in the UK market. I understand BIW, Asite, Cadweb and Aconex have all recently ceased NCCTP membership; Sword CTSpace (formerly BuildOnline) was expelled from the NCCTP some years ago; other providers such as ePin, Union Square, Autodesk Buzzsaw, StoreData and MPS were never part of the initiative in the first place; and there are new players in the market (Woobius and Clouds UK are two recent examples - see posts here and here respectively) for whom data exchange is not yet (as) important.  

Second, it is debatable whether the remaining NCCTP members deliver "the market leading collaboration tools”. 4Projects is undoubtedly one of the most widely-used systems in the UK, but they have always historically lagged behind BIW in terms of turnover and number of users, and Business Collaborator, Causeway and Sarcophagus have all lagged behind 4Projects.

Third, as the various applications have developed, the initial focus on sharing drawing and document files has diminished in importance, with some vendors looking to focus on contract administration or financial control (BIW) or building information modelling (Asite) to differentiate their solutions. Expanding functionality to cover a wider range of workflows and an expanding range of metadata will create further interoperability gaps between them and the remaining NCCTP members.

08 July 2009

INCITE insight

Incite-logoJust before I went on holiday (Menorca, very nice), I had lunch in London with Sean Kaye and Michael Baker, respectively CEO and General Manager, Technology of Australia-based construction collaboration vendor Incite.

I blogged about Incite a couple of times last year (here and here). Then it was a small business largely focused on the Australian market but was beginning to extend operations overseas (Hong Kong and Dubai), and was delivering ThinkProject! software on a Software-as-a-Service basis.

More recently (April 2009), however, Incite unveiled its own next generation project collaboration tool and platform, Incite Keystone. This was showcased at Microsoft's Australian ReMix Conference (11 June 2009) as an example of Software-plus-services, and delegates heard how the application had been from the ground up over the previous 12 months with Web 2.0 technologies like JSON, jQuery and some Microsoft things like Entity Framework, etc (see the Remix video here). Not yet part of the core product but really ground-breaking is an integration with Microsoft's Virtual Earth mapping tools (have a look at the Incite blog).

The Incite website links to a tour featuring YouTube videos about the new product's functionality, which also extend to a mobile phone application (Keystone Mobile), an archive product (Incite Archive), and - perhaps most interesting of all - an Incite API, allowing customers and developers to build their own applications, integrate enterprise systems and access project data within Keystone. (Incite is not the only vendor to offer such a service; as part of its recent release - see post - UK-based vendor Asite also announced its own AppBuilder.)

Incite Keystone is offered on four plans:

  1. Basic (AU$15 per month per user + AU$15/month per Gb storage - that's about £7.30 or just under US$12 at today's exchange rates)
  2. Standard (AU$29 per month per user + AU$12/month per Gb storage)
  3. Ultimate (AU$39 per month per user + AU$8/month per Gb storage)
  4. Ultimate Enterprise

For the above, support service levels are progressively enhanced as you move up the scale.

I understand that Incite will continue its relationship with ThinkProject Solutions but will also be looking to migrate customers to its new Incite Keystone platform.

The business's headcount has also grown, to upwards of 35 people, with further growth likely during 2009. An office is set to be established in Hong Kong and Incite is also keeping the Middle East situation under review, but it also looks likely that the company could soon be targeting Europe.

22 June 2009

Putting the social into AEC development

I have been following posts on a blog hosted by PTC, a vendor of product development technology solutions to 'discrete manufacturers'. Its product lifecycle management (PLM) applications are widely used in the industrial, high-tech, aerospace and defence, automotive, consumer and medical device sectors. OK, not my usual industry interests, but useful nonetheless as the blog posts are about how multi-disciplinary teams can use technology - and web 2.0 technologies in particular - to share and develop their product ideas.

And earlier this month, I got a news release from PTC about how its Windchill ProductPoint could be integrated with Microsoft's SharePoint system to extend the SharePoint capabilities to work with complex CAD and structured product data, while also enabling social computing. PTC's Rob Gremley says:

“Social product development is the next step in the evolution of how people work together. The idea that social product development was ever considered to be a new and revolutionary model will seem inconceivable to the next generation of engineers who have grown up with social networking as a normal vehicle for information sharing. Organizations that are able to harness the power of social computing in their product development strategy will quickly outpace their competitors with greater operational efficiency and ultimately better products.”

An AEC opportunity?

It is widely held, I think, that the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) sector lags behind technological developments in other industries, including manufacturing. PTC is already showing the way it believes manufacturing businesses can achieve a competitive advantage, so I wonder how long it will be before AEC firms begin to embrace social media as part of their technology stack to improve their operational efficiency and deliver better buildings and other assets?

Some have begun to adopt the tools and techniques (I have mentioned Fielden Clegg Bradley's adoption of Wikis, and have blogged on pwcom2.0 about HOK's use of blogs, Facebook and Twitter - see post and follow-up guest post), but for many AEC firms, social media is either shunned or only grudgingly tolerated - and even then perhaps simply for PR, marketing or recruitment purposes. Few have embraced Web 2.0 whole-heartedly and - perhaps apart from AEC integrations with SharePoint, the Kalexo platform I reviewed earlier this year, and Asite's new community portal - we remain some way from incorporating social computing into everyday professional interaction in the AEC sector.

More on BIM and IPD

Catching up with some reading over the weekend, I found this Constructech article: Integrated Project Delivery. Focused on the US market, it is a readable overview of the role that building information modelling (BIM) will play in supporting IPD, but also includes observations from users/vendors of pre-BIM information management systems (eg: Newforma, e-Builder) that facilitate project document workflows.

Relevant previous posts:

05 June 2009

Gloomy times for SaaS collaboration vendors

Today I have been hearing about redundancies among staff at one of the UK's leading construction collaboration vendors.

This news comes as no surprise. The writing has been on the wall for all the collaboration vendors since the credit crunch hit last year. Widespread project postponements and cancellations have led to corresponding reductions across the many firms of consultants, contractors and subcontractors reliant upon a steady throughput of new project opportunities, and businesses like 4Projects, Asite, Aconex and my former employer BIW will not survive unscathed. Only last month, discussing StoreData, I wondered if its sliding turnover indicated the impact the recession was having on collaboration vendors - even those targeting supposedly more buoyant segments of the construction market. And in the wider AEC computing market, Autodesk has so far announced over 1000 lay-offs worldwide this year (ignoring the alarming reports that it was no longer investing in its Constructware collaboration product - see Constructware conundrum continues).

It will be some months before we will be able to glean from their annual reports and accounts exactly what the impact of the recession has been on the main collaboration vendors, but the steady upward curve of the sector's turnover will certainly be interrupted. Hopefully some of the people affected by any redundancy programmes will quickly find new opportunities - but I suspect some will be lost to the construction/property industry altogether.

(I know from my own experience that the general AEC market downturn has prompted belt-tightening across many areas of business expenditure. With less funds being devoted to marketing, PR and industry liaison, the attraction of being BIW's in-house corporate communications professional was dwindling. However, I was also being asked to provide strategic advice to other AEC firms on collaboration technologies and on social media for construction PR and marketing, so I worked with BIW to negotiate a mutually-beneficial exit from the company and re-establish my previous consultancy business, pwcom2.0 - see A new blog, a new direction.)

04 June 2009

E-business penetration of AEC industry

Having completed a PhD in the 1990s and got lots of support from people in completing questionnaires and doing interviews, etc, I vowed that I would return the favour when approached by other researchers. Ever since, I have supported numerous academics in their endeavours, and the latest is Star (Yongjie) Chen, a PhD research student supervised by my friends Kirti Ruikar and Pat Carrillo in the Civil and Building Engineering Department of Loughborough University (Kirti was co-editor of the book e-Business in Construction, to which I contributed a chapter last year - see post).

Star is looking at e-business, and wants to establish the level of penetration of e-business in the UK construction industry, and to investigate trends within the industry in implementing e-business strategies. If you want to participate in this research project, the questionnaire is available here. This confidential survey will apparently take about 8-10 minutes to complete, and you can request a summary of the results.

01 June 2009

e-tendering still a minority pursuit

Three-quarters of firms still post or email tenders to their clients, despite the fact that e-tendering can reduce their costs and streamline the overall tendering process, reports Construction News, citing a report released last week by BCIS, the building cost information service of the RICS.

BCISetendercover The BCIS survey (PDF available here) - reflecting responses from 369 RICS members - showed the percentage of tender documents sent solely in electronic format has almost doubled since 2006, increasing from 8% two years ago to 15% (ie: about one-in-seven). However, the percentage of electronic documents being delivered by physical means, eg: on a disk, increased from 2% to 46% while the percentage sent by email decreased from 64 per cent to 46 per cent.

These results suggest that, since the RICS first issued guidance on e-tendering in October 2005 (see my post RICS e-tendering guidance note: a review), there has been been a reduction of only about a third in in the use of email for e-tendering - despite the RICS's warnings of the risks involved. Yet, the main area of growth appears to be the sending of electronic documents on physical media - ie: by post or courier.

The RICS launched its own e-tendering system in October 2007 (see my post) but according to reports in Building magazine earlier this year take-up was not extensive (see my January 2009 post RICSe-tendering.com hardly used - not 'baffling' and the 14 February follow-up).

BCIS executive director Joe Martin believes the main barrier to adopting a web-based system relate to the presumed costs (though his main focus clearly relates to the RICS e-tendering service). It is also clear from the results that marketing efforts to persuade clients of the benefits of e-tendering need to be upgraded: client demand for e-tendering remains almost unchanged since 2006.

For me, a stand-alone e-tendering system - while a step in the right direction towards electronic information-sharing and re-use - remains a flawed concept, particularly where project teams are already using web-based construction collaboration platforms (aka 'extranets') to manage and document just about every other aspect of a scheme's development. The BCIS report's final paragraphs appear to suggest that such seamless sharing of information flows is both best practice and desirable:

"BCIS is convinced that Web based e-tendering minimises the administrative overheads associated with tendering, streamlines document handling, speeds up tender processes, eases the demands on managerial resources, provides added security and makes it easier to comply with best practice recommendations. ...

"Better structured digital tender data supports improved analyses and facilitates the flow of information from contractors and subcontractors, through surveyors’ systems, into clients’ systems. Over time, BCIS believes industry firms will become increasing aware of the true value of such data."

29 May 2009

Google Wave

googlewave The web is abuzz with excitement this morning about Google Wave (see this great summary at Mashable), Google's new real-time communication platform "coming later this year". It combines aspects of email, instant messaging, wikis, web chat, social networking, and project management into one in-browser communication client.

Already, people have started wondering about the potential of this new technology to revolutionise project collaboration in construction - and as I've started reading up about it, I've begun to wonder if the construction collaboration technology vendors might start developing OpenSocial gadgets or robots to create interfaces between their systems and Google Wave.

26 May 2009

TEAM building and BIM

I have spent a few hours recently talking to groups and individuals about building information modelling (BIM). My perspective is one fashioned by experience in working in construction collaboration software - a field that is still almost completely 2D - but I find that some of the issues relating to adoption of BIM are simply an extension of the issues faced in adopting any kind of collaborative approach. This usually boils down to an assertion that successful collaboration only 20% technology, the other 80% is all about people and process.

This, I think, applies equally to BIM. And others echo my thoughts. I have just been reading Mike Whaley's article, There is no 'I' in IPD - the latest Viewpoint article in Lachmi Khemlani's excellent AECbytes newsletter - and he makes a similar point in respect of the need to build teams, to get people out of their old-style silo approaches and embrace an integrated, collaborative approach. He seeks to encourage:

  • Trust (commitment that we were all working together)
  • Enthusiasm (that this was an exciting group of people to work with, and that it was a good project)
  • Appreciation (of the various skills that everyone brought to the project)
  • Mutual respect (often based upon previous project experiences)

The workshop process he advocates sounds very similar to the approaches employed on numerous UK projects undertaken on a "partnering" basis since the 1994 Latham Report. He also favours the co-location of teams. This is something that has yet to be widely employed in the UK (but was used successfully on the Heathrow Airport T5 project). Mike then discusses the potential of BIM technology to enable integrated working, and is clear that the existing BIM solutions are still in need of development:

"In an ideal world, the full integration would eliminate the need for the 'remodeling' from one phase or team member of the project to the next. But the development of one all-encompassing 'mega-model' that will work for all the disciplines is probably somewhere out there in the future."

Like other commentators (see my posts US structural engineers warming to BIM, and 2D to 3D: still a work in progress), Mike has also found marked differences in the speed at which different disciplines, subcontractors and suppliers have embraced BIM:  

"... many of our subcontractors and suppliers are more advanced at modeling than our design partners. ... for aspects such as ductwork, etc., the manufacturing industry has been doing modeling for years to coordinate with fabrication equipment. This has allowed these industries to be ready to “jump” on the BIM bandwagon faster and, quite honestly, has also given these sub-contractors financial advantages in this tight market by allowing them to pre-fabricate, thereby reducing waste and improving schedule/delivery. On the other hand, many of our design partners are opening the “box of BIM” only now.

"... we have a few design partners that have really embraced BIM technology and, as we look for strategic alliances on projects, this is becoming an important characteristic to us in our team selection process. As IPD becomes the preferred project delivery method, there may very well be some design firms that will unfortunately be left behind because of their lack of ability to provide strong BIM modeling."

This final point hints at the challenge many design firms now face regarding BIM: should they invest now (ie: during a recession) or wait until the industry/technology/demand develops still further? (see my posts BIM boom? and Information modelling for greener buildings).

My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Tweets

    • TwitterCounter for @EEPaul
    • be2camp

    Google

    • Custom Search

    pwcom 2.0

    Blogs I read

    Search

    Bookmark and Share
    Mobilise this Blog

    Copyright

    • © 2005-2009, Paul Wilkinson.
      All rights reserved