What actually needs to be in place for a team to get value from 4D? Is it OK to start on your 4D journey by allowing for a extra modelling resource on a project and starting simply? Does there need to be a 3D design model in place?
A lot of the time we can be guilty of letting the 10% hold up the 90. Or expecting someone else to produce something before we can. If information isn’t there or people aren’t providing it and you need to get a message across, you can create it yourself, or get someone in your team to create something for presenting a programme visually. So 4D can happen as soon as you want to make it happen.
4D is about getting people on the same page with the plan to start with and then ideas and information can develop and evolve from there.
Depending on your skill set, you may need, or will most likely need, someone in the team to help you create the content if there is nothing in place. Even if there is, you still need someone proficient to update and re-purpose what’s there.
It’s as Reuben Burns has said before and what @April Angela Santos is saying also when saying someone who has Project Management skills - ideally, the ‘unicorn planner’ or a couple of them! Someone to facilitate and someone to produce the models.
It is true to some extent, but you can also up-skill existing team members traditionally working on producing 2D sequence drawings to transition to 4D! You should already be planning the works somehow so the resource should be there. However, need to take into consideration that 4D/model based planning will take more time than "just" 2D drawings so yes, you either start earlier OR you might need to bring in an additional resource.
We either need much better models out of the box, in software or formats that are easy for planners to interface with. Or you need a 4D Planner that has a foundation in modelling at the moment.
Models are too far from ready, or have parts missing (logistics elements etc.)/coordination issues with different disciplines for a 'traditional' planner to pick it up and run with it.
I know hopefully cloud hosted models aren't too far off, but there is also the current issue that the planners (mostly) are issued the MS Surface, or a small Lenovo Notebook laptop. Both of which struggle with more then a training exercise in most modelling softwares.
For the time being, a 3D Modeller than has an appreciation for Gantt is the best fit imo.
I agree with Chris that it will depend on the skill set then you will need another resource. I believe that a planner should lead 4D.
I think we should not rely on models just to produce a schedule. But making a schedule is one thing, project execution is another. I often experience, from my end, that there are no proper system that has been implemented in doing projects. For me to get the value from 4D, one should establish their foundation in project management first before jumping into what technology has to offer.
Echoing many of the responses, 4D is best implemented with a strong PM structure that is established early on and built with the entire project life cycle in mind. Even if we are simply using 4D for early constructability analysis at first, the project should reflect on the various stages of LOD that the schedule and model will evolve through together at a later date. Creating integrated project teams and establishing 4D as a required workflow from the beginning is crucial for smooth implementation.
Who is this? Our first thought may be to pick a traditionally siloed department like Design, Project controls, etc. However, just like we are looking for a non-traditional "Digital Multiplanner", we must admit they will not exist in any of those structures. Regardless of their background, the two most important traits requirements imo is the Passion for digital change and the Knowledge of industry scope and execution methods. I have found this equally in a planner, modeller and engineer in the past.
Good point Kristina. Perhaps we could do a future podcast episode on this topic? "What type of person, and with what skills makes a 4D modeller/planner?"
Great question! I think it depends. I was first a planner, but a colleague of mine was first a modeller. Most times, people will exit their schooling with a pre-defined idea of what their training equals into a career path or choose based on what their peers/mentors guided them through in the beginning of their career. (Side topic: Why its so important to have digital practices like 4D being promoted in universities and trade school)
But the common thread is an enviroment where both worlds coexist in an interactive culture, where we continue to breed these hybrid employees.
Whether the Digital Multiplanner started from planning or modelling is a moot point imo since it comes down to the individual in the end. Even planner A and planner B will have different strengths and yet both have the same title. I believe the ‘secret sauce’ is more skill specific, for example, Understanding parent-child hierarchy and breakdown structures could be learned in both departments.
True. It will all depend on that individual.
I asked because it’s a common debate who will handle 4D (which can be another thread in the forum). And I have heard from someone that the task of 4D was handed over from modellers to planners. If the planner doesn’t have a strong foundation of PM even if they’re good with a software, the process will fail. As a modeller, if they don’t have a good sense of constructability, tasks will be redundant.
I just read an article that says in the future, the breadth of perspective will be just as important as the depth of expertise. This might be a good trait for the Digital Multiplanner, to be generalists.
In terms of producing/maintaining the 4D model, I agree with Liam that with the current software restrictions/lack of "hybrid" individuals this should be done by a 3D modeller/BIM professional. I believe you get better results when you are given a programme and a 3D model if you have advanced 3D modelling skills and some very basic planning/constructability knowledge compared to the other way around. But still you can massively fail if the programme is not good enough so there should be an open communication/collaboration with the planner.
However, my opinion on who should be driving 4D implementation out on site is the lead engineers responsible for the works (i.e. Section Engineer, Site Agent). They are better positioned to:
identify what daily/future challenges 4D can solve and push boundaries
bring different teams together and be the link between planners and BIM professionals (they should be managing the outputs from each team anyways!)
what pre-existing meetings can be improved with the use of 4D
integrate 4D into the daily/weekly planning of works
After all the site should be planning the works already in existing frequent meetings so 4D should just introduce a better way of doing this exercise!
Finally, there should be no need to over-complicate things with linking WBS structures/linking everything together (unless you already have the knowledge and the experience to do it properly which will be ideal). Simple 4D models can bring great benefits so just do it! 😀
A lot of the time we can be guilty of letting the 10% hold up the 90. Or expecting someone else to produce something before we can. If information isn’t there or people aren’t providing it and you need to get a message across, you can create it yourself, or get someone in your team to create something for presenting a programme visually. So 4D can happen as soon as you want to make it happen.
4D is about getting people on the same page with the plan to start with and then ideas and information can develop and evolve from there. Depending on your skill set, you may need, or will most likely need, someone in the team to help you create the content if there is nothing in place. Even if there is, you still need someone proficient to update and re-purpose what’s there.
So the idea that 4D requires an extra resource is true for most projects? What type of person should this be? A planner, a modeller, or someone else?
It’s as Reuben Burns has said before and what @April Angela Santos is saying also when saying someone who has Project Management skills - ideally, the ‘unicorn planner’ or a couple of them! Someone to facilitate and someone to produce the models.
It is true to some extent, but you can also up-skill existing team members traditionally working on producing 2D sequence drawings to transition to 4D! You should already be planning the works somehow so the resource should be there. However, need to take into consideration that 4D/model based planning will take more time than "just" 2D drawings so yes, you either start earlier OR you might need to bring in an additional resource.
We either need much better models out of the box, in software or formats that are easy for planners to interface with. Or you need a 4D Planner that has a foundation in modelling at the moment.
Models are too far from ready, or have parts missing (logistics elements etc.)/coordination issues with different disciplines for a 'traditional' planner to pick it up and run with it.
I know hopefully cloud hosted models aren't too far off, but there is also the current issue that the planners (mostly) are issued the MS Surface, or a small Lenovo Notebook laptop. Both of which struggle with more then a training exercise in most modelling softwares.
For the time being, a 3D Modeller than has an appreciation for Gantt is the best fit imo.
I agree with Chris that it will depend on the skill set then you will need another resource. I believe that a planner should lead 4D. I think we should not rely on models just to produce a schedule. But making a schedule is one thing, project execution is another. I often experience, from my end, that there are no proper system that has been implemented in doing projects. For me to get the value from 4D, one should establish their foundation in project management first before jumping into what technology has to offer.
Echoing many of the responses, 4D is best implemented with a strong PM structure that is established early on and built with the entire project life cycle in mind. Even if we are simply using 4D for early constructability analysis at first, the project should reflect on the various stages of LOD that the schedule and model will evolve through together at a later date. Creating integrated project teams and establishing 4D as a required workflow from the beginning is crucial for smooth implementation. Who is this? Our first thought may be to pick a traditionally siloed department like Design, Project controls, etc. However, just like we are looking for a non-traditional "Digital Multiplanner", we must admit they will not exist in any of those structures. Regardless of their background, the two most important traits requirements imo is the Passion for digital change and the Knowledge of industry scope and execution methods. I have found this equally in a planner, modeller and engineer in the past.
Perfect combination of skills! Was the “Digital Multiplanner” a planner first or a modeller?
Good point Kristina. Perhaps we could do a future podcast episode on this topic? "What type of person, and with what skills makes a 4D modeller/planner?"
Great question! I think it depends. I was first a planner, but a colleague of mine was first a modeller. Most times, people will exit their schooling with a pre-defined idea of what their training equals into a career path or choose based on what their peers/mentors guided them through in the beginning of their career. (Side topic: Why its so important to have digital practices like 4D being promoted in universities and trade school)
But the common thread is an enviroment where both worlds coexist in an interactive culture, where we continue to breed these hybrid employees.
Whether the Digital Multiplanner started from planning or modelling is a moot point imo since it comes down to the individual in the end. Even planner A and planner B will have different strengths and yet both have the same title. I believe the ‘secret sauce’ is more skill specific, for example, Understanding parent-child hierarchy and breakdown structures could be learned in both departments.
True. It will all depend on that individual. I asked because it’s a common debate who will handle 4D (which can be another thread in the forum). And I have heard from someone that the task of 4D was handed over from modellers to planners. If the planner doesn’t have a strong foundation of PM even if they’re good with a software, the process will fail. As a modeller, if they don’t have a good sense of constructability, tasks will be redundant. I just read an article that says in the future, the breadth of perspective will be just as important as the depth of expertise. This might be a good trait for the Digital Multiplanner, to be generalists.
I completely agree. Breadth will be a Must, and Depth will be the variant among a team.
Great discussion here!
In terms of producing/maintaining the 4D model, I agree with Liam that with the current software restrictions/lack of "hybrid" individuals this should be done by a 3D modeller/BIM professional. I believe you get better results when you are given a programme and a 3D model if you have advanced 3D modelling skills and some very basic planning/constructability knowledge compared to the other way around. But still you can massively fail if the programme is not good enough so there should be an open communication/collaboration with the planner.
However, my opinion on who should be driving 4D implementation out on site is the lead engineers responsible for the works (i.e. Section Engineer, Site Agent). They are better positioned to:
identify what daily/future challenges 4D can solve and push boundaries
bring different teams together and be the link between planners and BIM professionals (they should be managing the outputs from each team anyways!)
what pre-existing meetings can be improved with the use of 4D
integrate 4D into the daily/weekly planning of works
After all the site should be planning the works already in existing frequent meetings so 4D should just introduce a better way of doing this exercise!
Finally, there should be no need to over-complicate things with linking WBS structures/linking everything together (unless you already have the knowledge and the experience to do it properly which will be ideal). Simple 4D models can bring great benefits so just do it! 😀