transitioning to a digital review process – going...

Transitioning to the 2D/3D Digital Review Process – Going Paperless

A Practical Instruction Guide

Participant Manual

©2013 Avolve Software Corporation & Solibri LLC

Participant’s Manual Transitioning to the 2D/3D Digital Review Process

©2013 Avolve Software Corporation, Solibri LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 5

Transitioning to the 2D/3D Digital Review Process – Going Paperless .............................. 6

Course Overview ................................................................................................................... 6

Course Learning Objectives .................................................................................................. 6

Session 1 – Transitioning from Paper .................................................................................... 7

Session 1 Learning Objectives .............................................................................................. 7

Introduction: Now is the Time for Change! ............................................................................. 8

Paper vs. Digital .................................................................................................................... 9

The Paper World ............................................................................................................... 9

The Digital World .............................................................................................................11

The Big Picture: Where We’re Going... .................................................................................13

Role Transformation ........................................................................................................13

“Smart” Government ........................................................................................................14

The Safe, and “Smart” Built Environment .........................................................................15

Four Transitional Technologies Impacting Regulatory Review .........................................16

Change Drivers ....................................................................................................................17

Who’s Going Digital? .......................................................................................................17

Change Drivers Impacting the AHJs ................................................................................17

Green Movement .............................................................................................................17

Economic Downturn .........................................................................................................18

Government Services Delivery .........................................................................................18

AEC Industry Practices ....................................................................................................19

Federal (See “Getting Rid of Government Paper – a Short History”) ................................19

The Bottom Line ..............................................................................................................19

Why Does It Matter to You?..................................................................................................20

Information Value .............................................................................................................20

Risk Factors .....................................................................................................................20

What is Not at Risk? ........................................................................................................23

Summary of Session 1 .........................................................................................................24

Session 2 – The 2D Digital Process .......................................................................................25

Session 2 Learning Objectives .............................................................................................25

Getting Started: Self-Assessment ....................................................................................26

Transitioning to Digital: Self-Assessment Checklist ..........................................................27

Adoption Strategies .........................................................................................................29

Transitioning to the 2D/3D Digital Review Process Participant’s Manual


Challenges .......................................................................................................................31

Digital Review Technologies .................................................................................................32

Electronic Plan Review ....................................................................................................32

Online Building Codes and Standards Database (Reference Libraries) ...........................34

Digital Seals and Signatures ............................................................................................36

2D Digital Rollout ..................................................................................................................40

Business Automation and Change Management .............................................................40

Business Process ............................................................................................................50

Benefits ...........................................................................................................................52

Other parties and departments ........................................................................................54

Keys to Success ..............................................................................................................55


Session 3 – 2D + BIM and the AHJ.........................................................................................56

Session 3 Learning Objectives .............................................................................................56

AEC Industry Practices ....................................................................................................57

BIM is a Process ..............................................................................................................59

BIM is a Database ...........................................................................................................59

What Can You Do With a BIM? ........................................................................................60

AHJ Benefits ....................................................................................................................64

The Big Picture: 2D/3D Digital Review .............................................................................64


Course Summary .................................................................................................................67

Appendix 1: Getting Rid of Government Paper - A Short History ..........................................68



Table of Figures

Figure 1: Paper Plan Review Submittal & Distribution ................................................................ 9

Figure 2: Digital Submission and Distribution ............................................................................11

Figure 3: Smart Government Technology Trends (Gartner Research) ......................................14

Figure 4: The World and the U.S. are Adopting Digital Plan Review .........................................17

Figure 5: AutoCodes Proof of Concept Project – 2D Plan Review Results (Fiatech) .................21

Figure 6: AutoCodes Proof of Concept Project – Plan Check Anomaly (Fiatech) ......................22

Figure 7: Adoption Strategy Models ..........................................................................................30

Figure 8: ePlan Technologies Support Interoperability ..............................................................32

Figure 9: Online Code Reference Library Sample (Computecture)............................................34

Figure 10: Local Codes Cloud Project (Computecture/Fiatech) .................................................35

Figure 11: Public Key Infrastructure Validation Flow on Plan Submission .................................36

Figure 12: Electronic Stamp on 2D Plan (courtesy of Avolve Software Corp.) ...........................39

Figure 13: High-Level ePlan Rollout Flow Chart ........................................................................40

Figure 14: Identifying Stakeholders: Input & Buy-in are Key (Fiatech) .......................................41

Figure 15: E-PLANS User Guide, City of Chicago .....................................................................45

Figure 16: E-Plan File Naming Convention, City of Baltimore ....................................................46

Figure 17: E-Plan File Naming Convention – Illustrative Examples, City of Baltimore ...............47

Figure 18: High Level ePlan Business Process (Avolve Software) ............................................50

Figure 19: Workflow Design Document – Montgomery County, MD ..........................................51

Figure 20: Digital Review eForm – Martin County, FL ...............................................................52

Figure 21: Technology Timeline Comparison ............................................................................57

Figure 22: “Downshifting” from 3D to 2D ...................................................................................58

Figure 23: Consistent Technology Environment throughout Project Lifecycle ...........................59

Figure 24: BIM Visualization Detail (Solibri) ..............................................................................61

Figure 25: Fire Compartments and Zones (Solibri) ....................................................................61

Figure 26: Egress Analysis & Occupancy Rules (Solibri) ..........................................................62

Figure 27: Applied Accessibility Rules (Solibri)..........................................................................63

Figure 28: Report from BIM Check (Solibri) ...............................................................................63

Figure 29: BIM/IPD Building Code Council Amendment — State of North Carolina ..................66



© 2012 Avolve Software Corporation and Solibri LLC

All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical—including photocopying, scanning, or recording — or by any information storage and retrieval system, including the Internet or any online system, without permission in writing from the Authors.

Reproduction of this product for any purpose — including reproduction to avoid purchase of additional copies of this or any other product — is a violation of this copyright. It is likewise an infringement of this copyright to create other works by paraphrasing, modifying, or otherwise appropriating parts of this product without the written permission of the Authors.

Transitioning to the 2D/3D Digital Review Process – Going Paperless: A Practical Instruction Guide was written, compiled and edited by:

Bill Gould, Avolve Software Corporation

Jonathan Widney, Solibri, LLC

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like acknowledge the following organizations for their contributions to this coursework:

Fiatech, Regulatory Streamlining Committee/AutoCodes Steering Committee

Avolve Software Corporation

Solibri

Computecture

Target Corporation

City of Chicago, IL

City of Baltimore, MD

City of Philadelphia, PA

City of Bend, OR

Martin County, FL

Montgomery County, MD

Mecklenburg County, NC

And the many other AHJs nationwide that have endeavored to make the transition away from paper and streamline their plan submission and review using digital technology.



Transitioning to the 2D/3D Digital Review Process – Going Paperless

Course Overview This course serves as a primer for Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and respective staffs considering and/or wishing to make the transitioning to a new, innovative and digital process. We will briefly discuss current practices and shortcomings, but only to understand that change is called for, and now is the time to move forward, proactively. This course is structured into three (3) sessions, each focused on different aspects and perspectives of this transformation.

The 3 sessions will last approximately 3 hours in duration, in total. The sessions are organized as follows:

Session 1 – Transitioning from Paper

Session 2 – The 2D Digital Process

Session 3 – 2D+3D and the AHJ

We will attempt to explore and discuss the concepts and the models of adopting new processes, but we will also discuss challenges and any risks that are likely to be encountered. In addition to the conceptual discussion, we will present practical examples of workflow, business processes and tangible, measureable benefits to a range of stakeholders.

Course Learning Objectives Following completion of this course you should feel comfortable with the topic and be able to:

• Explain why this course is relevant and needed NOW

• Describe what is meant by the Digital Review Process

• Describe the 2D/3D Hybrid approach to Digital Review and its basic components

• Explain the opportunity that BIM represents to the AHJ

• Describe the benefits and any risks that should be expected

• Explain the impact on the customer, employee and organization

• Explain the steps that should be taken



Session 1 – Transitioning from Paper Session 1 introduces you to the topic and learning objectives of the course. It also focuses on exploring current practices in contrast to the digital world that is here now, the change drivers that are impacting the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), and any risks associated with change, or continuing with “business as usual”. One of those risks was underscored by the results of a “proof-of-concept project conducted in 2011 that reveal the inherent randomness and inconsistency of reviews conducted using traditional means.

During this session, we will cover the following topics:

• Session 1 Learning Objectives

• Paper vs. Digital

• Change drivers impacting the AHJ

• Risks

• Q&A

Session 1 Learning Objectives Following this session, you will be able to:

• Recognize that change is needed

• Contrast current practice with digital review

• Identify 4 transitional technologies

• Describe the risks of adoption

• Describe the risks and consequences of inaction

• Describe who will be impacted

• Explain the advantages of digital review for the AHJ



Introduction: Now is the Time for Change! This may seem like a common cliché, but it may actually be a huge understatement. The reality is that change is happening all around us, at speeds that are astounding. When we look around our daily work environment, it is almost impossible to miss all the innovations and technological advancements that make up daily life. Consider the web, the cloud, tablet PC’s, the phone that is really a computer, and the “speed of life” in our society generally.

We all recognize that the use of computers has become the norm in virtually every industry and within the government. If we just look at our own area of expertise — the built environment — we will find that there has been (and continues to be) significant change in the use of technology over the past decade. Perhaps we have asked ourselves (even many times), ‘how is it that I’m still working with paper and a red pencil, everyday?’ While more and more information is moving around us, for the most part, the standard business practices in the plan review world are just now beginning to move away from paper.

Technology companies have for many years focused on other aspects of government operations and now have begun to address the need to transition to a digital plan submission, review and management process. Adapting and adopting new methods and technologies is often difficult for many organizations, and perhaps especially for a municipality or a government agency. There are budgetary discussions to be held, and a lot of planning and hard work ahead.

But the time is already past due for the public sector to leverage the technological advances that have taken place and apply them to code compliance. The benefits are significant and will be explained and discussed during the course. One thing is for certain; the world of the built environment is moving, adopting new technologies and practices, and accelerating all the time. Paper-centric processes will be abandoned because they are too time consuming and error prone. The real question to be asked is, “how can you afford NOT to transition to digital, and not to change?”

The status quo in plan and code review will not survive.

Now is the time to go digital.



Paper vs. Digital It’s important to understand the key differences between the paper and digital process and the changes you can expect as the industry moves forward. The world of paper is well known to those who participate in this course, so it doesn’t require much explanation. The digital world is very different and contains tremendous potential for the future; be assured that digital plan review and code compliance technologies and methods have just scratched the surface with respect to the possibilities for innovation and transformation.

The Paper World

We’re all familiar with the traditional, paper process model, and its many variations. Multiple sets of drawings (sometimes as many as 32!) are delivered to multiple departments, and multiple responses are provided independently of other review departments.

Figure 1: Paper Plan Review Submittal & Distribution

Over time, different approaches have been taken to do whatever was possible to give applicants better choices and service when it came to paper-based reviews.

Some enhancements to the paper-based process have included:

• Permit application via paper form or online

• Plan submission via o Floppy Disk, CD o Email attachment

• Bar-Code Tracking o Bar-Code stickers



• One-Stop Shop o Online permit application, process o Single point of contact o Attempt to streamline process o Consolidated response to applicant

• Design reviews and other forms of negotiated agreements with Officials

Even though some approaches involved electronic media such as email or portable disks, almost all submissions are eventually printed out for the actual review. Some AHJs employed (and still do) bar code technology as a way to track the sheets through various review phases and departments.

The One Stop Shop approach offered applicants a way to interact with a single point of contact at the AHJ, but even so, the review process is still conducted using paper sheets distributed to multiple departments. Other procedures, such design reviews and pre-negotiated project expediting have been devised to help shorten the review cycle, for small and large projects. But overall, the basic requirements for submission review and approval remain.

The drawbacks to this model include the following:

• High cost to print, deliver, submit (design firm costs) and store (AHJ cost issue) • Inefficient business process • Manual labor (both physically handling the drawing sets, and reviewing them) • Severe limitations



The Digital World Digital Defined

What do we mean when we say “going digital?” The broadest definition is:

• Using electronic files and data instead of paper But, when discussing the transition to 2D/3D digital processes, we prefer:

• The interoperation of multiple technologies that enable secure, digital plan/project submission, review collaboration, management and ongoing information re-use.

Figure 2: Digital Submission and Distribution

The differences are clear and very compelling. Instead of delivery trucks dropping off stacks of drawing sets, files are transmitted securely and electronically to the AHJ; the digital system can then inform all designated parties that the files are available on the network server for review.

Electronic plans (and models) can also be integrated into other applications and processes via wired and wireless networks, making relevant information accessible and re-usable.

The clear benefits of this process, from just the surface view include:

• Access from anywhere

• System Interoperability

• Semi-Automation (and Automation)



• Visualization

• Order of magnitude extensibility Moreover, while this summarizes the “big picture” view of the digital world, the positive impact in terms of day-to-day operations extends further and will be discussed in more detail later on.



The Big Picture: Where We’re Going...

Role Transformation

In an article published October 2011 by the ICMA’s PM magazine, a seminal idea was presented to the code compliance community, namely: as the regulatory arena becomes more complex the role of the code official will be transformed from an enforcement agent into “trusted advisor and problem solver.” The cited text:

Problem Solvers and Trusted Advisors

As the regulatory environment becomes more complex, building officials need to see themselves as problem solvers and trusted advisers more than enforcers. The new role of facilitator requires a different set of skills, a different mind-set, and constant reinforcement:

• Ensure that staff members are well schooled in all required codes, advisory standards, and energy rating systems.

• Provide training on how to work effectively with developers as partners and customers; focus particularly on listening and problem-solving skills.

• Work with builders and developers to incorporate codes into their plans from the outset to eliminate potential violations before they occur.

• Emphasize collaboration as the local government’s approach to managing the built environment.

• Reward employees for solving problems rather than issuing citations.

“It requires a long-term philosophy that balances protecting the city from risk and liability while facilitating efficient development,” said Ed Daley, city manager of Hopewell, Virginia. “Code enforcement can be both a public protector and a facilitator of economic development—but that is a cultural change for many building officials.”1

The article continues: “Technology and e-government services support efficiency and effectiveness in the built environment, particularly as new codes and rating systems broaden development requirements and expand the breadth of inspection and review processes.

2

The message here is clear. Our view of the code official and their role needs to expand – is expanding – and technology is enabling that expansion. Thus, role transformation and digital transformation are tightly linked phenomena that follow and pull each other along.

Let’s take a closer look at the technology side of where government is going.

1 Becker, Christine; Managing in the Complex Built Environment. ICMA PM, October 2011 http://www.ibts.org/articles/built-environment.html 2 ibid.

http://www.ibts.org/articles/built-environment.html�

http://www.ibts.org/articles/built-environment.html�



“Smart” Government

In March 2013, Gartner Research published its report: Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends for Smart Government. Directed at CIOs, it describes the broad technology applications that will define efficient, affordable and sustainable government, citing a “Nexus of Forces” that are mandating change in order for government services to survive – and perhaps even thrive.

Figure 3: Smart Government Technology Trends (Gartner Research)

Of the ten trends, seven have a direct relationship with a digital regulatory compliance review process. They are:

1) Citizen-Managed Data Using a digital submission and review process, citizens are empowered by (self) service options such as when/where to submit, status updates, fee payment and communication/collaboration. Further, having building and development information in digital form opens the door for citizens to eventually “query” on select/appropriate built environment content and use it for their own enrichment.

2) Business Process Management The plan review process is not merely a regulatory process. It’s also a business process, and depending on the jurisdiction, it can be a complex business process. A technology-enabled review process allows for automation, greater cross-departmental control and the collection of metrics that can be used to improve efficiency and accountability.

3) Cloud Computing Conducting digital review services “in the cloud” is a path to minimize costs and optimize economies-of-scale efficiency, accessibility and portability for departments/agencies and citizens.

4) Cross-Domain Interoperability



Despite the claims of some vendors, there is no single technology system that addresses every requirement for a completely digital review process. That means that systems need to integrate and operate with each other as seamlessly as possible. There are a number of systems, such as ePlan, permitting, GIS, and Mobile that have a share in the review and compliance process. These need to work together “invisibly” from the user’s perspective.

5) Mobile Devices Mobile devices fall outside what is covered in this course, but they will play an increasingly larger role in Smart Government, and in the digital review process, especially as it concerns downstream use of building plan information.

6) Big-Data Information Management The Built Environment is a dynamic, Big-Data deposit waiting to be mined for all the value it holds for citizens, planners, administrators and mission-critical service providers such as Fire and Police. Aggregating building and development project information that by necessity must pass through the regulatory review process is an essential task that can only be performed by digital means.

7) Next-Generation Analytics Closely related to Big-Data is the ability to analyze built environment data, applying filters, business algorithms and forensic inquiry to extract new and specialized information views. Analytics presents new and exciting ways to conduct planning, built environment lifecycle management, and regulatory compliance.

The Safe, and “Smart” Built Environment

Building officials, plan engineers, inspectors and administrators, through the establishment and work of Code Authorities such as the ICC, NFPA and others, have always been driven forward by the need for maintaining a safe built environment in response to new developments in construction techniques, materials and management practices. Now, with the advent of digital tools applied to regulatory review, AHJs are on the front edge of pursuing a new objective: the safe and “smart” built environment.

Smart government, smart cities and a smart built environment — this is the “big picture” vision that is being adopted worldwide by elected officials, administrators, managers, commercial owners and AEC professionals to a greater or lesser degree and at various rates of speed. This is the context in which digital transformation for the regulatory process is being called for and implemented.

As a matter of theory, the smart built environment is a safer environment, in part because the digital tools currently in use and in development elevate the review process and the activities of those who conduct it, while making it less prone to error – either by commission or omission.



Four Transitional Technologies Impacting Regulatory Review

While there are many different types of digital technology that work together to streamline the plan review and code compliance process, four stand out as particularly essential to making the transition from paper to digital. These four are also at different stages of maturity with respect to technology and/or adoption among AHJs. They are:

1. 2D electronic plan (ePlan) submission, review and tracking (semi-automated) • As a system, in use since about 2005. This technology is maturing each year and

serves as the basic platform on which jurisdictions can transition to a digital process. Much more will be said about this in Section II.

2. Online Building Codes and Standards • The coalescing of known building, safety and legal codes from multiple

authorities in a structured, cross-referenced database that offers users a variety of search and retrieval options, along with tools to organize custom reference libraries for ease of access and use for reviews. In use since 2000. (more in Section II)

• Supported content: ASCE, ASHRAE, ASME, ASTM, AWWA, BHMA, IAPMO, ICC, IEEE, NFPA, SMACNA, CFR, DOJ, FEMA, HUD, OSHA, OSHPD

3. Digital seals and signatures • Public Key Infrastructure technology has been in use for over 30 years, having

been developed with funding from the National Institute of Standards (NIST) as part of paper reduction/elimination initiatives by the Federal Government. While the technology is very mature, the application of the technology with respect to signing plan files is relatively new; licensing authorities for engineering and architecture have now revised their statutes to accommodate digital signing, and resistance in the AEC community is waning each year. State and local authorities still have jurisdiction on the use of digital signature and seals, and several AHJs are encouraging the use of them in conjunction with ePlan submission.

4. Fully automated code checking using BIMs (Section III) • Model checking software represents a significant development for both

commercial AEC firms and public sector plan review/code compliance. Section III is dedicated to explaining the technology, its inherent benefits, and its current and future application for code officials and plan reviewers.



Change Drivers

Who’s Going Digital?

Today, there are likely several hundred AHJs in the U.S. of all sizes and locations that have made or are in the process of making this transition. There are also international cities (and countries) adopting this approach, as well as design, construction and trade contractors who are all recognizing the power and the benefits for their own organizations. There is also an ever-growing group of high profile owners who are very active and aggressive, as they develop their own standards in an effort to gain efficiency, and most importantly, consistency when they are submitting items for review in multiple jurisdictions, simultaneously.

Figure 4: The World and the U.S. are Adopting Digital Plan Review

Change Drivers Impacting the AHJs

Drivers for change come in all shapes and sizes. In this section we review some of the important drivers, acknowledging that this is not an all-inclusive list.

• Green Movement

• Economic Downturn

• Service-Oriented Government Operations

• Commercial Process/Technology

• Federal Mandates (since 1980)

Green Movement

• Resource conservation • Fossil fuel consumption • Quality of Life

AHJs Nationwide Foreign Cities and Countries

AEC Firms Commercial Brands



o Air o Traffic congestion

It makes sense that a significant reduction in paper will conserve resources in several, obvious areas (e.g. cutting down trees, all the related costs to support that practice), and that it is still just scratching the surface, as there is such an integrated effect within the paper production industry. Then, the process of creating drawings (paper and ink), duplicating them maybe as many as 50 times, and all the associated transportation requirements to physically move that paper between the design firm and the AHJ, with intermediate stops in many cases. This is also the model that is followed by the General Contractor. It should be very clear that a digital exchange, which can be handled electronically, is much more appealing.

Economic Downturn

• Workforce management and development

• Government as a ‘business’, not just about the art of being code technicians

• Competitive environment

Adding to the situation described above, the struggling national and international economy has created an environment that heightens the need for technological parity and interoperability between commercial and public-sector business processes. Just as it was acknowledged long ago that processing paper in government was too costly and inefficient, so now it has become clear that protracted regulatory and judicial reviews pertaining to construction project permits are considered a major impediment to economic progress.

In short, as planning departments are forced to ‘do more with less’, and as we are seeing our most experienced and knowledgeable personnel retire, we need to take action. If you couple this with the new generation of employees that are applying for work, who are for the most part very comfortable with computers, video games, and most importantly multi-tasking, it is clear that the current practices will not appeal to their intelligence.

Finally, as the nation begins to rebound from the poor economic situation that has lingered, it will be critical to be able to process any and all projects, whether to approve or to require clarification, expeditiously. The skills need to be learned and people need to be willing to embrace change, for the right reasons.

Government Services Delivery

• Put services online for greater efficiency, convenience for citizenry

We are also living in a time when the government recognizes that the sharing of information is a key component in the delivery of a new and improved level of services to citizens. It has been identified in multiple studies that the amount of money wasted on projects just because of interoperability issues was staggering. With the proper security controls in place, it is now possible to make use of the Internet and use the technology to open up the information flow.



The creation of a new position, the Chief Data Officer (CDO), confirms that digital data possessed and managed by the jurisdiction has high value, and needs much more attention. Data mining and visualization is just not possible if we are still depending on paper as a means of communication.

AEC Industry Practices

• Virtual Design and Construction (VDC – see Section III)

Federal (See “Getting Rid of Government Paper – a Short History” Appendix 1, pg 68)

• Paper Reduction Act (1980), Government Paper Elimination Act (1998)

• 2011: White House and Congress identify permitting as a harmful bottleneck

The Bottom Line

It follows that AHJs must adapt the technology tools that will make it possible to:

• Reduce the costs and liabilities of paper plan processing and storage

• Enhance public-facing “self-serve” citizen/customer services 24/7

• Expedite permitting to attract economic development; stay competitive

• Re-use valuable information that is currently, practically inaccessible

• Support high-levels of efficiency in the face of workforce reduction and transition

There is no single best way to effect a transition to digital processes and methods, and each jurisdiction needs to take sufficient steps in order to understand the breadth and depth of change making a full transition to digital will require.

In the very best possible circumstance, such a transition will take time to attain, is a sizeable organizational challenge that impacts a wide range of workers and citizens and, perhaps most importantly, requires clearly defined objectives that can be managed and enforced, along with leadership that is capable of promoting a digital strategy among stakeholders.

The goal of this course is to educate the regulatory industry/community and stimulate an ongoing, comprehensive and technology-enabled process transformation within it.



Why Does It Matter to You? The facts speak for themselves. Change is all around and innovation is becoming part of our daily vocabulary. Rather than fighting against it, we need to gain an understanding of the problems that a given technology is intended to solve (and there is always a primary objective) and then we need to determine if that technology is right for our specific needs.

By now, we can certainly say that paper and pencils do not make economic sense. We also know that it makes no sense to have (and even build) buildings just so we have a place to physically store paper drawings. We also appreciate that paper is not a dynamic information medium, and does not always convey content so that it is well understood by viewers. Also, it is certainly a longer process to make corrections or track changes.

Clearly today, when speed and control matter, paper fails.

Information Value

But, perhaps even most importantly, what transitioning to a digital process does is give the AHJ a way to capture the value of the information they have been taking in, processing and storing away in warehouses and on office shelves for years. The plans and documents that are submitted digitally have proved to be useful for other departments, such as public works, first responders, community planning, disaster preparedness and recovery and state and federal agencies. Not all information is of critical value to the AHJ, but what is can now be captured and utilized for tasks that are critical for the well-being of the community.

Risk Factors

The historical question has always been “What are the risks of adopting new technology?” The areas of immediate concern were:

• Does it work like we want it to?

• Can people be trained to use it properly?

• There must be a cost justification and a value determination. Who will do this?

• Is it likely, or even possible, that we will be overwhelmed, even for a short period of time?

• Is it possible that our efficiency will actually slow down, before we start to see any benefits?

These are all very legitimate concerns. There will need to be compromise, as you are asking for a new system to replace the one that has been in place for decades. This means a full review and analysis of the current model and then probably some small steps, to get started.

With regard to training, that depends on how these needs are addressed. There is no reason for anyone to be overwhelmed with any of the technology, as it is possible to be trained in sessions, or all at one time, whichever best fits your needs and your schedule.



Another way to explore the question of risk, is to look at it from the impact that will be felt if you DO NOT go digital.

Human resources – People may not feel that they will advance their careers if the work process is mired in dated practices.

Operational – You will begin to fall behind your peers and will quickly find yourself in a position where your processes are so different that you have little to discuss. This also means that current inefficiencies just continue into the future. The costs of processing paper and storing it are cumulative — they only increase over time.

Human Error – Human error always has and continues to permeate manual, paper-based processes. A recent study conducted by the global technology consortium Fiatech and its Regulatory Streamlining Committee as part of the AutoCodes Project, documented that reviews of a baseline plan set performed by over a dozen AHJs yielded alarming inconsistencies in the results.

The study enlisted the help of 13 volunteer code checking entities, which were asked to perform a manual plan review/code-check of a single story retail building, for accessibility and egress only. Additionally, reviewers were asked to use the codes they would use in their daily work. All reviewers were looking at the same plans (made available in 2D Digital files). The following chart tells quite a story about consistency.

Figure 5: AutoCodes Proof of Concept Project – 2D Plan Review Results (Fiatech)

A couple of questions that leap off the chart:

• How is it possible for 1 entity to make 40 comments, while another only has 1?

• How can there be 16 non-compliant issues with one entity, yet there were others that did not report one (1).



• How could every review team except one miss a door clearance error, given the relative simplicity of the assignment and the plan set (single story, retail floor-style building)?

Figure 6: AutoCodes Proof of Concept Project – Plan Check Anomaly (Fiatech)

Simply put, the level of inconsistency that was documented in the study underscores the point that when human beings perform plan reviews, there is potential for error on a regular basis. Based on the results, it was clear that there needed to be some communication between the customer and the reviewer, and that the level of disparity and inconsistency exists across the nation. That is an unacceptable situation. If the goal for code officials and plan engineers is to maintain safety and integrity in the built environment, then it follows that technology that helps reduce inconsistency and error in the plan review process is a welcome development.

One of the conclusions drawn from the study is that human/manual activity proves susceptible to all of the real and potential errors that account for increases in costs, as well as undermine safety and integrity in the built environment. (The report can be found at www.fiatech.org).

Economic risks (especially long-term). The cumulative financial impact of paper-based reviews and human randomness can be calculated in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually — primarily in lost revenues due to construction/operations delays. Businesses, and especially the large national/global brands, that utilize brick and mortar facilities are very aware of these costs and consider them carefully when deciding on where to locate/invest.

http://www.fiatech.org/�



Cities, counties and states have always worked to make themselves attractive to businesses that expand tax revenues, jobs and infrastructure. AHJs that, through enabling technology, can approve projects faster without compromising safety and integrity have the advantage with respect to new projects that support community and economic development.

Additionally, without modern technology in place it will be difficult for to provide the best level of service to the emergency management team, as well as resources engaged in disaster preparedness and/or recovery. Those shortcomings alone should be reason enough to start moving.

Streamlining the regulatory review process by employing similar and symbiotic technologies and methods can help development and AEC firms, building owners, AHJs and communities realize their economic potential with respect to growth and progress.

While current digital submission and review technology cannot and does not claim or attempt to replace all human/manual activity in the review process, it does provide a means for reviewers and commercial stakeholders to coordinate more efficiently and streamline reviews, thus speeding permit approvals. Advanced code checking technology for BIMs has the added potential to eliminate a high percentage of redundant and mundane review tasks that currently require human time and attention.

AHJ and commercial development priorities may differ to some degree, but maintaining technology and methods sufficient to serve the best interests of both spheres of activity makes the most sense. Even as there is no question about the importance of regulatory review for the built environment, there is also no question that healthy communities are a reflection of successful public/private partnerships.

What is Not at Risk?

• There is no risk that humans will be replaced by technology. This is often the first question, but the human knowledge is still in high demand.

• Building safety is not at risk. If anything, more can be learned about the building than ever before.

• Freedom and flexibility are not at risk. We are simply inviting the computer to participate and resolve some of the more mundane and tedious tasks for us.

Finally, change does cause friction and it can be difficult to manage. But, it doesn’t have to be that way. Instead, challenge your colleagues to look for the benefits that will be realized, rather than focusing on a different workflow, as a source of worry.

TRANSITIONING TO DIGITAL IS NOT AN OPTION, BUT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY.

Digital tools support and enhance our work.



Summary of Session 1 • You should have an understanding of the current situation

• You should recognize that there are many drivers – owners, industry, economic, etc.

• Adoption is underway. More than 100 jurisdictions have either adopted, or are engaged in the transition to a digital process

• The real goal is CONSISTENCY

• Risks are manageable



Session 2 – The 2D Digital Process Section 2 is focused on the practical aspects of transitioning from a paper-based process to the world of 2D Digital Review. We will look at some of the pre-transition planning that could prove most useful, some of the challenges that might be faced and then the actual rollout of the process. We will introduce new technologies, identify some important changes to be made in existing areas, explore the business process and highlight some of the benefits that you could expect to achieve. The one assumption that we have made is that change is resisted in many instances, and most times just because it is a human reaction to the unknown. That is fine. Clearly, there is no benefit to anyone if the new process does not yield significantly greater value, when compared to the current process. The other fact to bear in mind is that many have already executed this transition and the only question that remains is ‘when’ this is done, not ‘if.’

During this session, we will cover the following topics:

• Session 2 Learning Objectives

• Getting Started: Assessment

• Challenges

• 2D Digital Rollout

• Electronic Plan Review

• Business Process

• Benefits

• Online Code Reference Libraries

• Digital Seals and Signatures

• Q&A

Session 2 Learning Objectives Following this session, you will be able to:

• Understand how to approach the transition to a digital process

• Understand different approaches to adoption

• Describe the different types and roles of technologies used

• Describe how digital review supports efficient collaboration

• Explain how the digital process impacts stakeholders’ roles

• Understand specific concerns associated with 2D Digital Rollout



Getting Started: Self-Assessment

Transitioning to a totally digital environment with respect to land use/building plan submission and review may at first appear to be rather ridiculous, impossible, or inadvisable — or all three. First, no business office on the planet has rid itself of all the paper related to a given process, so paperless can’t really refer to no paper whatsoever. And even if the scope and definition of paperless (with regard to plan review) is narrowed to the process of receiving and reviewing plans for permit approval, somewhere along the way some paper may be required – perhaps for legal reasons. All true. But here it should be pointed out that paperless need not refer to the absence of all paper as much as the policy and practice of moving your building/planning department to a fully digital process, and that this is smart, attainable and very beneficial to the department (AHJ), the customer-applicant and the community.

The path, speed and effectiveness of such a change will likely be different for every department/agency using digital technology. Therefore, this course is not trying to promote a rigid process that demands adherence for success; rather, it is a collection of basic ideas and principles that have been applied in different ways by various jurisdictions with the goal of eliminating paper completely from the plan submission and review process in every instance possible. Many of the points made here are common sense, and some will merely take away some affirmation of their own strategies and methods — and be encouraged to keep moving forward.

While everyone considering large scale changes well-established practices would like to experience a seamless and trouble-free shift from paper to digital, sound thinking and experience tell us that this is a ‘disruptive’ exercise. It was only in the past few years that the term ‘disruptive’ started to take on a positive quality. With the very rapid, almost explosive, introduction of new technology, the internet, computing power and speed everywhere you look, it isn’t hard to understand why disruptive would become a much more common term in our vocabulary.

Obviously, nobody wants to participate in a chaotic change to the daily routine. For this reason and in order to prepare effectively for change to occur, it is a very good idea to conduct a self-assessment of your organization, current practices, infrastructure, skill sets, personnel and culture.

Included here is a form that is useful to begin developing a snapshot of the areas that will be impacted during transition. This form is not intended to be all-inclusive, but can serve as a reasonable starting point for any entity that is considering a substantive change to their operating environment and profile. It includes some items you should consider to track the impact on your customers as well. When referring to the form, please don’t hesitate to ask questions of your instructor, if there is any need for clarification. Also, please participate by making suggestions if there are any omissions that you feel everyone would benefit by discussing or considering.



Transitioning to Digital: Self-Assessment Checklist

As you review each heading, place √ to answer “yes” and X to answer “no” to each question.

Customer Input & Work Flow

Yes No More Info

Does your department receive inquiries from your customers as to why you are not accepting, reviewing, etc., plans electronically?

Do plans currently proceed through your review process efficiently? Do plans seem to vanish--get lost on someone’s desk? Are customers submitting high quality plans that are then often rejected? Are inadequate submissions returned early or late in the process? Are all plan reviewers on a coordinated schedule for each submission?

Are you able to conduct parallel plan reviews within different divisions of your government?

Do you need to do parallel reviews to make your process more effective and efficient?

Workload

Yes No More Info

Do you consistently have a backlog attributable to heavy workload on reduced staff?

Are customers complaining about it? Are there any projections or plans to respond to needs in this area?

Are you adequately staffed to perform rapid plan reviews in the wake of a major disaster?

Are you outsourcing plan review services and/or could you do so if the need arose?

Personnel Issues

Yes No More Info

Are you facing a large number of retirements of your plan review staff and having trouble locating qualified replacements?

Are staff members without computer skills willing to learn new technology? Are there labor union issues involved here in changing work requirements or tasks?

Organizational Issues

Yes No More Info

Is there currently an effort to consolidate departments and re-engineer processes? If yes, will re-organization impact efforts to deploy digital review? How?

Operating Budgets

Yes No More Info

Is there funding available through a single source or multiple sources? Can a digital review solution be funded by an increase in fees? (i.e. “technology



surcharge/ convenience fee”) Would stakeholders support such an approach?

Technical Expertise

Does your department or government already have an information technology team for acquiring a system, conducting an RFP and collaborating with vendors during the design, implementation and management or maintenance of the system?

If yes, assess the relationship you have with the IT Dept. and seek to determine their partnership potential for a digital transition. Strong? Moderate? Weak?

Are you outsourcing technology services and can that model be effective for digital plan review?

Existing Technology

Yes No More Info

Can/will existing technology be used in conjunction with the new digital plan technology required for a digital business process? Will you need to add or replace supporting hardware and software?

Cross-Departmental Communications and Coordination

Yes No More Info

Is there effective cooperation among these departments?

Do you have a good understanding of how plan reviews are managed by other departments and how they would react to potential changes in their process?

Would these departments be interested in supporting and helping to fund and use technology in their plan submission, review, tracking and storage processes?

Building a Task Force to Study & Analyze

Departments that have successfully gone through the process of determining that their processes need streamlining and then selecting, acquiring and putting in place technology to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their programs have done so by assembling a Project Team comprised of representatives from key internal and external stakeholder groups to gather the answers to the above “Self- Assessment” questions.

Yes No More Info

Do you have a plan for how to manage the assessment process? Do you need to acquire outside assistance and do you have budget for this?

Once you have worked through the information above, do you see anything else that should be included? Do you agree with these categories, or can you think of others that should be added? Do you think we identified the areas that will be most impacted by moving to a new system and process?



Some of the pre-requisites that bear consideration include:

• Champions with authority

• Specific goals and objectives

• A well thought-out, structured program

• The will to transform and the drive that goes with it

• A good relationship with your IT department, outsourced IT vendor

Reports can be created to show a variety of data points regarding tasks, frequency, duration, quantity, specific behaviors, etc. (accountability, performance metrics).

Adoption Strategies

This is a critical, yet often overlooked aspect of any change. While we can definitely state that the shift from paper to digital review is a technology enabled act, the fact is that it should be seen as change driven by business reality, and for business reasons. There are many factors that influence the decision to change processes or procedures, but there is no denying that although technology plays a key role, the real challenge is sociological. It is about the people. An organization is really about the people who come to work every day and all the consultants and leaders who are engaged on a daily basis. Any change will indeed impact each person, and each person will probably have an opinion about change, no matter how small or incremental. That is actually a good situation, as it shows that people care about their work environment and they recognize that they are part of a culture.

One fact that is also quite apparent: there is zero chance of a successful transition if the path to adoption is not considered when planning this change. Adoption is really critical because it establishes the methodology for being able to move forward, and it can be different in every organization. In the chart below, you will see four (4) of the well-recognized models for adopting new processes. They all work, some take more time than others, some are less painful and some are a lot less democratic. Having said that, there is no way the organization can execute better after the transition, if the PEOPLE don’t embrace the new business model. Please review these adoption options and try to identify the model that best suits your organization. It’s not difficult to see which option is favored for a very swift and mandated change. Which model would be most effective for you?



Figure 7: Adoption Strategy Models

• It is also true that deploying technology and workflows to support the option of a paperless plan submission and review is actually a different endeavor than working to eliminate as much paper as possible. The establishment of a zero-paper culture requires leadership, commitment and cooperation to achieve transformational results.

• If the ultimate goal is to be totally paperless, it requires an approach that pushes the deployment envelope beyond the typical “option” status to a “mandate” status, compelling (dragging in some cases) the operations environment forward, toward a more complete realization of those benefits. As was mentioned, attitudes as well as actions must also be changed accordingly. Project stakeholders in every sphere will be challenged at some point by the requirement to “buy in”.

• Summary: There is no single best way to transition to digital, reduce and eliminate paper from your business process. Each jurisdiction needs to take sufficient steps in order to understand the breadth and depth of change this will require. In the very best possible circumstance, going digital will take time to attain, is a sizeable organizational challenge that impacts a wide range of workers and citizens and, perhaps most importantly, requires clearly defined objectives that can be managed and enforced, along with leadership that is capable of promoting a paperless strategy and culture among stakeholders.



Challenges

Moving to a new process, no matter how popular, will pose challenges for any organization. We will look at just a few, with the goal of trying to set expectations at a reasonable level. At the time of this writing, we are definitely living and working in a world full of challenges. Many of them are financial, which normally manifest throughout the organization (e.g. the overall culture, stress, reduced staffing levels, heavier workload, and pressure to do more with less). The challenges we have identified for discussion include:

• Budget

• Communication and cooperation

• Areas of change that are difficult to impact o Cultural change o Method change – plans examiners o Process change

• Technology – You must manage expectations o Technology is not perfect, it is a tool o Internal and external stakeholders will be impacted

• Training o Internal – staff, departments o External – commercial, private citizens

• Staying on Schedule

• Scope Creep

• Post-launch enhancements or modifications

• Public Relations – internal and external o Wide range of reaction



Digital Review Technologies

Electronic Plan Review

Figure 8: ePlan Technologies Support Interoperability

This section follows the slide titled 2D (+BIM) Technology Toolbox. There are many decisions to be made and it is important that consideration is given to several areas, even if they seem a bit ‘out of the realm’, currently. The slide clearly segments the toolbox into three (3) areas:

• Existing – GIS, permitting, IVR, Inspections, EDMS

• ePlan System – Essential first step

• Additional Systems – Online Code Databases, Digital Seals/Signature, 3D BIM

These groupings are intended to provide some perspective on areas of focus at different stages of your movement to a paperless environment. By understanding these stages, it is possible to better plan the framework, or foundation of your system, with knowledge that flexibility may be required in the future if you desire to expand the system or capabilities. The following is just a sampling of some of the topics that require consideration.

What technology will you need to go digital regarding the plan review and approval process? Here’s a list:

• ePlan software

• Permitting software

• Online payment system capability

• Document management software (archive, distribution)

• Web servers, database servers, application servers, storage servers (these can be onsite or remote hosted/cloud hosted)



• Minimum 24” monitors (larger is recommended) o Buy as much as you can afford – long-term investment; the cost of

monitors has dropped considerably. o It does take some getting used to o Two screen system – add the large monitor to your current system.

Studies suggest anywhere from 9% - 74% productivity gains on certain tasks. It is worth tracking this since the gains are exponential once you are comfortable with the tools and establish your own workflow

There is an ongoing controversy about productivity gains from using multiple monitors, but data suggests that CAD engineers and like workers benefit from multiple displays

• Scanning equipment



Online Building Codes and Standards Database (Reference Libraries)

Industry-related codes, standards, and mission-critical information is created and published by separate organizations. These sources also publish revisions, updates, or corrections related to this information separately. Traditionally these documents are published as printed books, and recently online book formats such as PDF, which are merely electronic versions of their un-linked, paper-based parents.

Plans examiners are responsible to know and maintain currency with all the codes within their specific disciplines and often for multiple disciplines. Moreover, certain projects can require that code officials sort through significant amounts of un-linked resources in different categories, searching for up-to-date and correct information when making important decisions. The result can be a loss of valuable time, an increase in frustration and perhaps even mistakes that cause expensive rework and revisions at inspection time.

Local authorities and sources also add amendments in the form of separate publications. This makes it more difficult for remote designers and engineers to search out proper documentation and submit accurate and compliant plan sets to local authorities.

Figure 9: Online Code Reference Library Sample (Computecture)

Unlike traditional electronic books or online search engines, the online codes and standards platform can maintain the genealogical linkage between books; if there is an erratum, addendum, revision about the source, they are shown together in the search results. The user always receives the most up-to-date, trustworthy information quickly and easily.



Users can apply filters on database queries to limit a search to certain time frames or applicable codes for a specific project. The returned results can be pin-pointed and highlighted citations rather than downloading entire code books, thus saving time, bandwidth and effort. Because it is in the cloud, the database is accessible from mobile devices as well. The code official can export information into reports and paste directly into review and resubmission notices.

There is also an effort underway designated the “Local Codes Cloud” that seeks to expand the collection of local amendments model codes and standards in a 2-year project that targets 5,000 U.S. jurisdictions. This project is designed not only to enlarge the code database for access, search and retrieval, but also to explore new methodologies and processes whereby state, local, federal and even international jurisdictions can control the creation and distribution of their codes and amendments online. Further, the not-too-distant future may witness the emergence of a cloud-based model code development environment that could eclipse current methods of collaboration, review and assessment, and ratification.

Figure 10: Local Codes Cloud Project (Computecture/Fiatech)



Digital Seals and Signatures

One of the most persistent uses of ink and paper in every industry is related to applying one’s signature to a document. Contracts, letters and memos, bank checks of every kind and, of course, drawings and plans submitted by architects, engineers and contractors are typically signed by a human or institutional authority. In addition to signatures, stamps and even raised seals are often required to authenticate, acknowledge and approve every conceivable directive.

Figure 11: Public Key Infrastructure Validation Flow on Plan Submission

Requiring an ink signature or stamp, wet or raised seal to complete a transaction between two or more parties is a legal necessity, but it also chains the plan review and approval/code compliance process to the paper world. This will continue to be the case unless AHJs can legally accept digital signatures and begin to apply digital versions of stamps on plans and attending documents associated with the process.

An entire educational course taking up a full 8-hour day would just begin the discussion one should have on this topic. Applying and accepting authorized digital seals and signatures to design and construction plans is a very complicated issue, but it can be framed by the following:

There is a distinct difference between an electronic signature and digital signature.

• A digital signature is an electronic signature, but an electronic signature is not necessarily a digital one. Digital signatures are defined as being a coded “electronic fingerprint” that binds the signer to the signature by means of a digital certificate and a managed security policy. An electronic signature can also be a visual representation (image) of the signers ink signature, that has been scanned or replicated digitally, but without a certificate or policy, and therefore inherently



insecure. Further, (adding to the confusion) digital signatures can include an electronic image of the signer’s ink signature, and often do.

Digital signing technology is very mature. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) systems have been in use for decades and are based on established industry standards (X.509/PKCS).

• Actually, the encryption technology that digital signature systems are built upon was developed in the mid-1970s. Today there are scores of PKI technology vendors and Certificate, Registration and Validation Authorities (CA/RA/VA) that support digitally signed documents of nearly any type. Certificate Authorities serve as ultra-secure encryption key storage and certificate management firms. CAs are charged with guaranteeing the integrity of the certificate, the key pairs and the identity credentials of the user. Registration Authorities typically conduct the policies required to issue/revoke and manage certificates with respect to users. They are able to issue certificates/keys to users while maintaining policies that prevent the compromise/corruption of the relationship between the certificate and the user. Validation Authorities communicate with RAs and CAs to verify identities and perform necessary checks on key pairs and certificates to protect parties in a digital transaction.

Deploying and managing a PKI system within a given organization has historically been a significant challenge.

• The difficulty associated with verifying identities and certificates tied to roles and responsibilities and the signing authority that goes with them is, historically, considerable. Pervasive PKI systems that touch every employee and application are very complex to manage effectively, and this makes them somewhat rare in the marketplace, even among large enterprise companies. Signing systems do exist that ease the pain for individuals and smaller organizations, however not without some reduction in security.

• For instance, Adobe Acrobat invokes its own root certificate when an author wants to “self-sign” documents without purchasing a certificate from a third-party vendor. Self-signing is an easy and fast way to apply a digital signature, except that there is no administrative policy associated with the use of the key. Self-signing can confirm whether a document has been tampered with prior to its opening by the intended recipient, however, and is sufficient if the two parties trust each other by some other means.

• There are also web-based systems that make the purchase and validation of certificates easier for companies of nearly any size. Essentially, digital signing infrastructure and management (PKI) is outsourced to a third-party vendor, which leverages the ubiquity and interactivity of the Internet (read “cloud”) to perform certificate validation on digital signatures applied by anyone, anywhere. The process is basically the same one that internet browsers use when connecting to secure websites for banking and a wide variety of secure operations online



(HTTPS/SSL), however browser certificate validation is a very weak security measure overall.

There is an ongoing question of what State law permits and prohibits regarding the use of digital signatures and seals for design, engineering and construction documents

• This is still a matter of some debate. The U.S. Federal Government passed the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act - UETA (1999, 48 states adopting) and followed it with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act - ESIGN (2000). States have largely adopted these federal statutes, but there are legacy statutes at the state and local level that can supersede or render federal law ambiguous when it comes to a specific application of a given statute, such as in the transfer of architectural and engineering plans. Each AHJ must research and verify what the law requires of them in regard to digital plan submission review and approval. In several jurisdictions that have implemented ePlan technology, time and effort was spent with City and County Attorneys to develop legal and indemnifying policies and procedures that allow permit applicants to submit plans and documents using digital signatures.

There are several jurisdictions that are accepting and applying digital signatures and electronic stamps on plans and documents currently

• As was mentioned above, when 2D digital plan review (ePlan) systems are deployed, the question of digital signatures and seals is always raised. However, not having an authorized digital signature policy in place has not prevented AHJs using ePlan from performing a digital review process. The workarounds are not always elegant, but the major advantages of digital submission are preserved and leveraged. A significant amount of research and work needs to be completed in this area of the digital transition process; it would be generous to call it an emerging best practice among jurisdictions with respect to electronic plan review.

• It should also be pointed out that Architects and Engineers themselves have been hesitant to use digital seals and signatures, in part because of the slow response of licensing boards to adopt statutes that allow it for their members (NCARB, NSPE) and the perceived risk and emotional concern associated with abandoning long-standing and familiar practices.

• The bottom line: there are a variety of ways for AHJs to establish trusted networks of users in their respective communities, and, apart from certificate purchase and maintenance costs on the part of applicants/submitters, and some administrative effort by the agency, digital signing is a viable operation applied to plans and documents used in the digital process.



Figure 12: Electronic Stamp on 2D Plan (courtesy of Avolve Software Corp.)

Sample of an electronic stamp on approved plan



2D Digital Rollout

Business Automation and Change Management

At this point we will move to a much more linear discussion, rather than extensive narrative.

Figure 13: High-Level ePlan Rollout Flow Chart

The following steps comprise a sketch of what happens when you decide to move forward with a plan to roll out a 2D digital plan review solution for your department or agency. These are general steps; your process may be different in any number of ways. You may choose to do a pilot project, or bolt a vendor add-on to an existing system and compress certain phases of the process. While discussed sequentially here, be aware that phases overlap and certain steps or their parts will likely be conducted in parallel.

Solid project management and leadership skills are really a must.

Overall, the message is this: the quality of the work you do proactively in preparing for a transition to digital will pay dividends as you proceed to open your digital doors to the public.

• Decision to GO!

AHJ Champion identifies need -

o Mayor

o City manager, County leadership

o Department Director

o Building Official

o Planning and Dev. Director

o IT Director



Someone has to make the decision to move forward with the transition process. It can be one individual such as a mayor, but it will likely be a group or committee call. The initial project team forms around this decision and any specific directives that are generated. The Assessment Checklist can be used as a guide for the early stages of team formation and planning.

Figure 14: Identifying Stakeholders: Input & Buy-in are Key (Fiatech)

• Review Process Stakeholders Identified (Assessment Checklist)

o Be sure to consider everyone who participates in the review process o Departmental, and even multi-departmental buy-in is strongly advised o Find the “champions” and use them!

The Project Team needs to identify everyone who will be directly impacted by the coming changes, especially those in management roles. Some may be added directly to the Project Team, but if not, Review Process Stakeholders should be included at some level in subsequent steps as Stakeholders are critical to departmental buy-in. Also, their input is usually needed to complete the next step, which is to accurately document existing processes in order to assess how best to effect change. When you find a champion, be sure to give them a way to be helpful in moving the transition forward.

• Current Process Review (Assessment Checklist)

o Technology does not equal process o Adding technology to a flawed process doesn’t make it less flawed o Over-engineering a basically solid process is equally problematic



Processes for different reviews and departmental interactions may already be documented, but often what exists is legacy knowledge stored in human resources – in other words, it’s undocumented. The former is an advantage in terms of time, but even so, gaining a thorough understanding of the current review process as it is performed is a healthy exercise and important for the Project Team to obtain — especially as it concerns exceptions. Digital tools can often impact parts of a process positively, but processes are different than technology and a manual process may translate very well to digital methods without too much change. Plan to put metrics in place to determine the overall impact of digital plan review technology and modified processes.

• Initial Planning and Requirements (Assessment Checklist)

o Designing a transition program encompasses many more disciplines than IT technology

o Take advantage of those who have pioneered before you – go and see; get help

Good project designers and managers know that getting as much input and practical advice as possible in the early stages of a project can make a big difference with respect to project execution and outcome. There is a wealth of experience already (gained at a cost) in the State and Local Government (SLG) market that will impact your requirements assessment as well as your budget projections. Don’t close yourself off from what others have done, and learn from their successes and failures. Based on the results of the Assessment Checklist, you may decide to hire an outside consulting firm to act as a “neutral third party” and provide guidance for your organization.

Besides the larger, process-centric and technology planning issues, other concerns include:

• What permits do we want to transition to digital? (probably not all of them at once)

• Which permits will we add to the initial roll-out and how long until they’re added?

• Which personnel are best suited for the transition and how should they be utilized?

• How will network, server and file security be configured and enforced? (IT Dept.)

• How do we want to modify the process at the permit counter?

• How will we communicate the changes we’re making internally and externally to the public? What is the PR strategy?

• What kind of training programs will we need to cover all the staff and the applicants?

• How do we set up the support required for users, such as a helpdesk, or online help?

• Who are good commercial/citizen candidates to help us with (and prior to) our soft launch?

• What will be our digital submission standards and procedures? How do we handle different file types?



• What is our meta-data strategy? (This is data you use to search for plans/documents)

• Who are the “go-to” people in the IT department (or outsource vendor) and what are their priorities? How do we best work with them? (they will be critical to your success)

• How do we plan to use the electronic plan files after approval, inspections and archive? When to archive and when not to?

• How do we utilize the plans in conjunction with GIS?

• Does it make sense for us to plan for BIMs if our customers want to submit them? (Actually, this is a whole new arena to be explored.)

• How many different ways do we want to use the system and what enhancements do we need for such?

• How will we handle paper submissions going forward?

• Research/Purchase Technology/Professional Services (RFP)

o Homegrown development is an option, but rare - and not for the faint of heart o Assembling best-of-breed solution will likely require systems integration o Add-ons from single-vendor solutions to their existing systems may integrate

easily/well but may not have best-of-breed features & functions o Adobe Acrobat: elegant interface and tools but as a solution is limited – exercise

caution

Do a lot of homework here as well. RFPs are an excruciating exercise for purchasing departments and stakeholders. And because this is a relatively new market for vendor software, there are many promises being made during the sales process – in the hope that “on the job” experience can be accrued at the AHJ’s expense. If you have done a good job researching during the initial planning and requirements gathering phase, you’ll be in a good position to assess vendor proposals…and the costs.

• Advanced Planning: Vendor/Stakeholder Consulting and Statement of Work

o Get ready for a whole new round of discussions o A “Discovery” session often uncovers additional items to be addressed that no one

fully anticipated o The potential for scope creep looms o The “Devil is in the Details” o Goal is a highly detailed, well-defined and mutually understood and agreed-to SOW

Reconciling the sales proposal, RFP requirements and the vendor contract terms with a to-be negotiated Statement of Work is a key activity and can be a real challenge for a simple reason: Try as you might, it’s difficult to know who you are going to do business with until after the RFP process, and to spend the time necessary for a thorough Discovery with your vendor — prior to purchase. Plus, you’ve already gone to your Council/Commission and



appropriated a specific amount of funds, so typically your funding is fixed. If your advanced discovery/planning sessions go smoothly, pat yourselves and your services/technology provider on the back. However, be prepared to work out the kinks in the SOW and give the Project Team enough room to air out all the big issues thoroughly before you proceed.

• Installation, Configuration, Workflow/eForm Development, Systems Integration

o The back-end, technical side of the transition to digital o Lots of detail will be generated by the Project Team and flow into the project o Scope creep is a real possibility here – watch for it.

Primarily, this will be the job of the vendor professional services team and your IT department personnel referencing the mutually agreed-to SOW, with oversight provided by the Project Manager. When it comes to scope creep, at first it might seem advantageous for the AHJ to squeeze more functions out of the budget and the services/technology provider, but it can also slow the project and create unnecessary tension among the stakeholders. Be careful not to jeopardize the schedule or the atmosphere. If this project phase goes as planned, pat yourself, your PM, your IT people and your vendor(s) on the back.

• External partners identified and engaged

o Include a limited number of commercial partners in your Advanced Planning team o Can be earlier in the rollout process if it makes sense o Can participate in hands-on training, system QA – great source of feedback

As part of the Rollout process, it is a good idea to get input from outside stakeholders by the Advanced Planning stage, if not sooner. The question is whether to get input early, such as in the requirements stage, or wait until the system design has matured enough that there is “something to work with.” Either way, it’s a good idea to get a limited number of applicant users exposed to the new process, and get feedback, prior to design lock-down and even along the way up until the soft the launch. You may or may not decide to let their input influence the configuration, but you’ll have a better idea of what you will be dealing with when you go public.

• Promotion, educational documents developed, policies and procedures

o Lots of detail to get ready to turn the system on o Work with internal PR department, external partners o “Meet and greet” sessions a great way to expose the system to new users

Depending on your PR strategy, there could be early activity in the news about your plan to deploy 2D digital plan review. Many AHJs hold off on promotion until they are comfortable with their progress with respect to system deployment according to the SOW. Carefully planning your hard launch and developing the proper press releases, conferences, training materials/ sessions, policies and procedures documents, support personnel and other detail-laden tasks is critical, and using a wide variety of media – print, web, video, television, email,



and even social media are all being used to communicate the benefits and the specifics of the system, and how it is to be used.

Figure 15: E-PLANS User Guide, City of Chicago

Download this guide here:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/E%20Plan/EPlan_Applicant_User_Guide.pdf

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/E%20Plan/EPlan_Applicant_User_Guide.pdf�





Figure 16: E-Plan File Naming Convention, City of Baltimore



Figure 17: E-Plan File Naming Convention – Illustrative Examples, City of Baltimore



• Training, Practice for Review Personnel, Staff, Applicants

o Training for a number of positions System administrators Department managers Plan reviewers and plan check coordinators Cross-departmental Support personnel Applicants

Obviously, training is one of the most critical aspects of the Transition. Preparing the training should be part of the initial planning activity, and progress through the entire rollout process. Training will be an ongoing activity as more and more applicants use the system. The care and detail devoted to training materials and events are worth the expense. It’s best to coordinate training in the rollout at tactical milestones that make sense based on the SOW schedule. Too early and people can’t apply their training and will forget it; yet it is also best to provide plenty of practice time for internal staff on the system prior to the Hard Launch. Many jurisdictions place the large-screen monitors on the desktop as soon as funding for such is approved – it gives reviewers time to get used to a two-screen modality. (Once in use, it’s hard to find anyone willing to surrender their dual monitor set-up.)

• Fine-tuning, modifications, Soft launch

o Final tuning verifies workflow and integrations are operational o Soft-Launch means all systems functional and ready for the end-user (applicant) o All process educational, policy and procedures documentation is either complete or

in final draft

Soft Launch is a true major milestone of the rollout. It means that the system is fully configured, ready for production and applicant end-user testing. This is the stage where selected commercial partners apply for a permit, upload plans, kick off the workflow and internal staff can put the system through its paces in end-to-end dry-run. If integrations to other systems were part of the planning and SOW, these are complete and also fully functional. Documentation and instructions to applicants have been designed and tested. Internal training has taken place and assigned plan reviewers are performing digital reviews on their desktop systems with large monitors.

• More Testing

o If necessary, a continuation system testing and fine tuning

The Soft Launch will likely expose glitches in the process, technology implementation, training and possibly all of the aforementioned. This interim phase between Soft and Hard Launch is the time to identify problems and remedy the ones that impact Hard Launch, while planning to address and remedy those issues that can be deferred to a future work cycle.



• Hard Launch – Open for Business

o Your digital doors are now open to the public o Here come the critics (and the fans, too.) o Expect the process to be slow in some areas as you work to become more efficient

with the system under the pressure of day-to-day business activity o Don’t be discouraged by mistakes or negative reactions – remember it’s new for

everyone out there, too.

Hard Launch puts everything you’ve worked at under pressure. You’ll soon discover what will hold and what gives way. Careful planning and quality execution of a solid transition plan will minimize problems. Again, it’s a matter of identifying and addressing the issues as they emerge, recognizing that you have really just started and that you’ll grow more experienced with digital review as you are now immersed in it, as opposed to just thinking about and planning for it.

• Process Assessments, Adjustments

o Plan for adjustments to the system after Hard Launch o Have a good plan in place to measure performance for your process, technology and

personnel o Have resources in place to address critical “show stoppers” if one appears –

minimize risk o Be patient with your customers – they can still be frustrating, but now at a new level Without exception, you will want to change certain functions, add more functions and dream up even more features. Some of these modifications may be critical to operational success and you should have the resources you need ready to address them. There’s really no going back now, so learn how to take advantage of the tools you have and look forward to the future — and take some satisfaction that you’re the more ready for it.

As you can see, there are many steps and the sequence of execution is very important. A key factor here is that there must be a sense of shared vision, on multiple fronts, for this transition to reach a successful conclusion. In addition to the vision, it is equally important that all parties trust and rely on each other.



Business Process

This section follows the information on the Review Business Process slide.

Figure 18: High Level ePlan Business Process (Avolve Software)

Business Process Automation/Semi-automation – integration, interoperability and hyperlinks allow ePlan systems to leverage machine automation features – making 2D digital plan a semi-automated business process

• Secure system web-architecture – same as the banking industry (Payment Card Industry/PCI) – one of the key characteristics of 2D plan submission is that the AHJ is actually taking files from the public-at-large via IT infrastructure

• 24/7 submission from any location

• Auto-create project using data from permit application

• Auto-generate email invitation to applicant to upload plans

• Auto-fill electronic forms from stored data in disparate systems

• Batch upload to file system

• Multiple file format support – many using PDF, but also DWF, DWG TIFF and JPEG

• Auto-distribute projects to review personnel (can be in multiple departments or locations)

• Automated email/message notifications to specific personnel o Initiate tasks o Completed tasks o More info required o Approvals o Re-submittals o Reminders/Prompts



Figure 19: Workflow Design Document – Montgomery County, MD

• Tags and hyperlinks allows automatic pan and zoom to specific locations on plans, code comments and corrections placed directly on plans

• All comments, corrections, codes and pan & zoom snapshots can be consolidated into a single report for preparing re-submittals

• Side-by-side and overlay compare features provide visual clarity for what has been modified, added and deleted from a given plan sheet prior to re-submittal.

• Intelligent, dynamic stamps can be applied to single and multiple sheets automatically

• Applicants can be allowed to access review status for their projects



Figure 20: Digital Review eForm – Martin County, FL

Benefits

The true rationale for going digital is contained in all the benefits that are typically expounded when acquiring streamlining technology: time and cost efficiencies, resource conservation, doing “more with less”, data management and re-use, and so on. For the purposes of this course, we have identified items for different stakeholders, as well as some keys to success. The identified benefits follow:

Applicants (Owners, Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Citizens)

• 24/7 submission from anywhere, ability to batch upload • No cost (or time) to print plans for submission or resubmission • No cost (or time) to transport plans • No lost plans or sheets • 24/7 access to review status, self-service • Communication via email, network access to all form factors • Clarity regarding comments • Faster approvals



Plans Examiner

• Less/No paper on your desk

• Tasks routed to you by workflow

• Workflow/eForms keep work organized

• Single data entry interface

• Direct access to GIS

• No lost plans or sheets

• Full View and markup toolbox

• Automated pan and zoom to specific issues

• Snap to measure calculates distances

• Overlay compare increases accuracy

• Comment directly on drawings

• Consolidate comments into single report

• Create custom, intelligent stamps

• Batch stamp drawings

• Work anywhere, telecommute

• Work anytime Management

• Reduce counter traffic

• Reduce support phone calls

• Streamlined business process

• Workflow design freedom

• Interoperability with other applications

• Reduce paper on desks, office space

• Reduce archive storage costs

• Instant retrieval of digital documents

• Improve cross-departmental communication and coordination

• Active audit trail

• Security permissions control

• Reports for analysis

• Information re-use downstream

• Repurpose office space

• Workforce development

• Green initiative goals



• Economic development advantages

• Improve citizen quality of life

Other parties and departments

• Building Inspectors

• Public Works

• Fire Departments

• Planning and Development

• Parks and Recreation

• Elected Officials

• Any department or agency that uses plan information



Keys to Success

This topic is included as a reminder of factors that figure into the success of any project, including 2D paper to 2D Digital transition. Among them, and this is definitely not an all inclusive listing:

• Success: People are the best barometer, much more than the technology

• Size does NOT matter

• Limit the scope of initial deployment; grow from there

• Set short-term and long-term milestones

• Applicants: Submission/review process, requirements o Be proactive o Be specific o Be consistent o Be patient, provide guidance

Summary of Session 2 This section covered a tremendous amount of material, but it was focused on identifying the steps to consider, the order of those steps and hopefully good reasoning why they are necessary. We also looked at a few of the more common adoption strategies, as well as some of the challenges facing any organization that wishes to go from a paper-based culture to a paperless one. We also discussed business process, who was impacted and how, and some of the more basic keys to success.

Finally, we explored some of the more tangible differences between the traditional and digital processes. At this point, there should be no doubt that this takes good people, thorough planning, strong conviction and a commitment to moving forward with a shared vision.



Session 3 – 2D + BIM and the AHJ

At this point in the course you have already been immersed in the steps, issues and benefits of the 2D Digital process. Now, we want to share with you in a bit more detail how you can leverage the transition to digital, by incorporating BIM into your workflow. We addressed BIM early in Session 1 when discussing the changes that are underway in the AEC marketplace. In this session, we’ll look at what you could accomplish as you continue to evolve the digital environment.

Session 3 Learning Objectives Following this unit you will be able to:

• Understand what’s driving technology and methods in commercial AEC

• Explain what a BIM is, as compared to the BIM process

• Explain what opportunities a BIM represents for the AHJ

• Describe some use cases for BIM

• Describe some of the benefits of the 2D+BIM hybrid process



AEC Industry Practices

Virtual Design and Construction (VDC)

• Authoring tools (3D)

• Collaborative technology, process

• Construction management (4D, 5D)

• Facility management (6D)

• Sustainability

In the early 80’s Computer Aided Design (CAD) found its way to the desktop, and it hasn’t looked back since. In spite of the fact that designers were using computers, they still had to print their designs out on paper for submission to the reviewing entities. Generating multiple sets of drawings was the only accepted practice for getting a project reviewed. As we have seen, this has begun to change quite dramatically. Buildings designed in a CAD system can be submitted to an AHJ in digital format for the purposes of review and approval.

The past ten years has also seen a major technological shift in digital design for construction and facility management. 2D CAD has been giving way to 3D, virtual building models, or building information models (BIM). Building Information Models (BIMs) and the tools to create and manage them have emerged as the new standard for the AEC/FM industry.

Figure 21: Technology Timeline Comparison

The evolution of technology for the AEC industry has also spurred the development of new ways for land developers, building owners, architects, engineers, contractors and subcontractors to organize themselves for project design and execution. Traditional Design/Bid/Build project delivery models are being eclipsed by new vehicles such as Design/Build, Design/Assist, CM@Risk, GMP and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).



These business models often incorporate and rely heavily on the use of digital technology for sustainable design, engineering, communication and collaboration, supply chain management, construction management and facility management (FM) — in other words, to facilitate transparency and collaboration, maintain cost-control and execute projects successfully throughout the building’s lifecycle.

BIM as a communication tool has proved to be exceptional, allowing for project tracking from end to end. The ultimate goal of the entire BIM value proposition is to make it possible to reuse data that is created at the earliest point in a project, all the way through the operating lifetime of a facility. It would be accurate to say that, even though we are about ten (10) years into the BIM era, the industry is still learning as new benefits are constantly being discovered, and shared.

However, BIM combined the new delivery models also encourage and drive project management methods that, with respect to efficiency and cost, are fundamentally incompatible with a paper-based, manual regulatory review and approval process.

From the commercial project management point-of-view, when a BIM-based project is being conducted in a jurisdiction that requires paper drawings, a significant disruption takes place within the project workflow, in that an otherwise highly choreographed, technology-centric and controlled business process must now “downshift” into manual mode. Architects and contractors have to move from digital plan and model files to paper blueprints for submission through what is normally several cycles of review.

Figure 22: “Downshifting” from 3D to 2D

It’s clear that this downshift has a real impact on the costs and efficiency of the project. Because BIM projects depend on technology-driven automation for scheduling resources and strict constraints on the materials supply chain, commercial builders and owners that utilize BIM and integrated delivery methods are taking as many steps as possible to streamline process. This takes many forms, including assessing potential risks to project completion found in certain jurisdictions and selecting sites based on such, pre-negotiations with building authorities, and just-in-time plan or parallel submissions for permits affecting specific phases of construction.

The idea situation would be for the commercial entity and the AHJ to be able share the same virtual environment during the review and code check process, and utilize the power of the computer to check the model whenever possible – without compromising building safety or



integrity. In pusuit of this goal, there are research and technology projects currently underway to enable the use of BIM in conjunction with 2D digital plan review for regulatory compliance. In fact, the 2D/3D approach to building review and code-check has already begun in some pilot projects.

Figure 23: Consistent Technology Environment throughout Project Lifecycle

BIM is a Process

As mentioned above, for the members of a design or construction team, BIM equates to the collaborative process that includes the authoring of models. In this usage, BIM is a verb (Building Information Modeling). This process is also frequently referred to as Virtual Design and Construction (VDC). The short definition of exactly what this is = the practice of designing the planned facility on the computer, and conducting coordination meetings (either in person or online) that are based upon the accuracy of what has been modeled. The real winner with this is the owner, as the practice results in very few field-based change orders, which historically were a cause of great concern, and cost overruns on almost every project. Since the introduction of this process, the silos that existed between trade contractors have dissolved and the success stories continue to occur.

BIM is a Database

For the AHJ or any reviewing entity, BIM means the Building Information Model itself. It is the digital work product created by the design firm or contractor that includes all the elements of a building, in the fashion of ‘smart’ objects, in other words what looks like a door or a window IS actually a door or a window, with related information attached to the object. So, not just a window, but perhaps a Pella window with properties that include dimensions, window type, glass type, etc. With this level of intelligence, the model becomes very useful and important to many project stakeholders.

A BIM is:

• More than a 3D representation of a drawing • More than just basic structural components • More than just doors, walls, windows and floors

It is an intelligent environment that can carry all types of amplifying data, accessible to others for analysis, to extract quantities, for GIS and for operations throughout the entire lifecycle of a



facility. The content of a BIM is determined by the ‘author’, according to design specifications, owner requirements or intended uses. It can be an extremely data rich environment.

We are going to talk about 3D models (BIMs) that have been created for the purpose of analysis, to include spatial validation, ADA compliance and code checking for accessibility and egress. These are areas that are significant for owners, and where a plan reviewer spends considerable time, daily.

What Can You Do With a BIM?

Once you have made the transition to a 2D Digital workflow, it will be possible for you to work with both 2D plans and 3D models. The value in this will be dependent upon your own processes and how much time you spend completing your plan checks. Can you envision having the model check and verify that all stairs are within code, and it can be verified and reported in a matter of seconds, as compared to a task that may take you hours, depending on the size of the building, number of floors and obviously, the number of stairs. Having used that example, what if, during that same check, you were notified of objects protruding into corridors, doors opening too wide into the same corridor and the exit doors being too far from the classroom? These are all very important issues, but trying to find, measure and count all of these manually can be very tedious, time consuming and boring. The beauty of the model is that it serves magnificently as a visualization tool, allowing you to walk (or fly) through the model, just as you would walk the halls and stairways of the actual facility. The accuracy of the model and the components that are represented is easy to verify and validate.

The model also can serve as a wonderful environment to assess quality and to verify that what is being proposed (in the form of a model) will actually meet the criteria of the planning commission, the development office and even the Mayor or City Manager’s office. In the very near future, the code checking will expand to Fire and Life Safety, energy usage and much more. The key is that rulesets can be created that are unique to the project, the jurisdiction or to any standard that is required to be applied. For the AHJ, you will already be positioned to adopt a 2D/3D workflow, since you will have migrated to the Digital world. The next step will be for you to inform the design community that they can start submitting models for local checking. Again, the cost savings alone, just when eliminating paper, make this a very attractive proposition. When you add the ability to check major systems, accessibility, and egress (only), this represents a huge productivity gain for your organization.

The other extremely valuable element of the BIM model checking ability is how much it will strengthen your workforce. It will be ‘cool’ to be a reviewer when you trade in the red pencil for the intelligent model and 2D digital documents. As attrition takes hold, hiring the next generation of workers will be much easier if models are part of the job description.

Visualization As we look at the slides with examples of use cases for models, try to imagine how this could be applied to your job. Visualization is a great example. Just as the name implies, this allows us to walk through the model, zoom in on an identified issue (in this case a ramp that has a column in the middle of it, where it is required that the space at the end of the ramp is free space.



Figure 24: BIM Visualization Detail (Solibri)

This information is provided with the issue, making the job of the reviewer a bit more interesting as now you are determining the severity of the issue, rather than spending your time hunting through paper to find them.

Fire Compartments and Zones When the model is created, or authored, it is possible to classify spaces according to any criteria that matters to the job, and to assign properties to the geometry and the spaces in the model. The concept of classification is very powerful, as it allows you to assign different parameters to different areas within the structure.

Figure 25: Fire Compartments and Zones (Solibri)

In this case, the author has included fire compartment designations to each space, which can then be checked for compliance. This type of information, if made available to first responders, could be quite valuable.

Issue There is not enough space at the end of Ramp. The required dimension is 6' x 5'.

Object intersects the required free area. This is an example of an issue that was not identified by any of the reviewing entities.



Egress Analysis and Occupancy Rules This gives us a visual depiction of the routes (both number of routes and location) from any space in the building to the exit doors. You have the option to see all the possible routes, just one (1) route, or any number in between. There are options so the user can define the parameters of what is allowable, and what is not. For instance, it would be possible to use this rule in a hospital ICU, where you may want to ensure that all treatment rooms are within a specified distance from the nurse’s station.

The occupancy rules will display the maximum occupancy for any of the spaces in the model. These are all user definable, in a matter of seconds.

Figure 26: Egress Analysis & Occupancy Rules (Solibri)

Accessibility Rules This is an exciting area to deploy a model checking solution. Imagine being able to check a senior center to verify that every restroom has the required wheelchair turning radius, according to code? That can be done today, and it literally takes just seconds. And, that might be checking 200-300 spaces. That would certainly take some time, if done manually. As the user, you would be able to modify any of the rule templates. You can also check corridor width, drinking fountain height, thresholds, ramp slope and railing height, and much more. What would that entail if you were required to find each and measure their dimensions by hand? Take a look at the figure below and note that consideration has been included for knee and foot swing, as well as the actual wheelchair.



Figure 27: Applied Accessibility Rules (Solibri)

Reports Once the model checking has been done, and the results have been reviewed, it is possible to send the results to assigned personnel in order to address the specific issues and then maintain an audit trail of issues, defined by status.

Figure 28: Report from BIM Check (Solibri)

The level of detail is determined by the way the model is to be used. This is one reason we believe that 2D digital will persist and BIMs will be a way to extend the project checking. Clearly there is no interest in replacing humans with machines, but there is great interest in freeing humans from menial tasks and asking them to engage on the issues that require their expertise, experience and their accrued intelligence.



AHJ Benefits

Simply put, the AHJ gains tremendous insight and leverage by being able to actually interrogate the model for its behavior, in multiple areas. The following uses are just a sampling of what is possible:

Options analysis – the ability to see multiple design alternatives, and check them quickly to ensure compliance

Energy design and analysis – This would allow the AHJ to know what systems were being installed and also query the model for information such as carbon footprint. It also gives you an early look at the planned placement of machinery, and the chance to question the design decisions, as well as to validate that they have considered alternatives.

Better design and more efficient construction – This is perhaps the area of greatest improvement. As the growth in model creation is exponential, models have to get better, be more consistent, and contain at least a minimum level of information. The AHJ will be able to verify the model content in a matter of minutes, identify any issues and then route the model back to the user. Then upon re-submittal, there is a feature to do model comparison, where you can see if objects other than the ones you wanted changed have been touched, if the ones requiring change had been modified, or if any other elements have been added to the model. This is an extremely powerful capability and one that will literally save hours of review time for the staff.

The other real benefit is the workflow that will allow the checker to get projects in and out very quickly, which results in expedited revenue payments, happy customers and the ability to generate a consistently high level review, which benefits all parties. This is truly a win-win situation for all stakeholders. And, it is more about predictability and consistency than just speed.

The Big Picture: 2D/3D Digital Review

For the foreseeable future, when conducting a digital review, AHJs will likely employ a combination of both 2D and 3D technologies, for a number of reasons.

First, there is no expectation for AHJs to “leap frog” 2D and go straight to 3D technology. This is because, even under the best of conditions, there is still going to be value in the 2D information and there is yet no accepted protocol established that requires everything to be in a 3D model. Over time, this will be addressed by determining the best practice for all concerned. As a matter of fact, it is likely we will see all three mediums (2D paper and digital, as well as 3D digital) at once in a given department workflow.

Second, while rules-based model checking is a present reality, the creation and validation of “digital rules” that correspond to all building and safety codes is a monumental undertaking. Work is already underway to identify and translate (into machine-language rules) building codes that lend themselves to more rapid adoption (e.g. accessibility, egress, fire and life safety, and energy), and which are very familiar to AHJs for code-compliance reviews. Such rules need to be developed and tested thoroughly, and their introduction and use in actual reviews will be a gradual, but steady process going forward.



Third, currently there are no established practices for authoring a Building Information Model (BIM) properly with respect for the concerns of the code official, although here too, efforts have begun to establish such. In fact, there is a need to create multiple modeling protocols that can be applied in the design phase for building and use types across a spectrum of industries, such as retail, health care, hospitality, residential and industrial/plant. Designers need to populate models with content that can be checked by the digital rules mentioned above, and both the requirements gathering and development process will also continue to progress.

There is value for AHJs to begin exploring the use of BIM in the review process, even in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is already happening. There are some benefits AHJs can realize from model checking with the technology that is available today, especially as it concerns becoming familiar with the 3D environment, and the work that is needed to put 2D/3D hybrid processes in place. Several code authorities and an increasing number of AHJs are well on their way to making the transition to digital media, and the experience of state and local authorities who pioneer new territory will help shape the emerging practices that yield the best outcomes for review process stakeholders. (See Figure 15 below)

One of the truly unique advantages of deploying technology in the public sector is the complete freedom government agencies and their respective departments have to share information and practical experience with each other. While there is always the potential for competitiveness with respect to large community development projects among AHJs, there are typically no barriers to impede communication and the real exchange of valuable lessons-learned. As was mentioned earlier, every AHJ making the digital transition has something to learn and something to pass on to those coming after them.

Digitally-enabled regulatory review is a relatively new frontier and the possibilities for new thinking, new methods and enhancing the process are endless. AHJs have and will continue to play a critical role in what the digital future will bring regarding the design, development and management of the built environment.



June 27, 2011

BCC Code Change on BIM-IPD Alternate Language on Voluntary Use 106.2.1Requirements;

• Except projects using BIM-IPD process see 106.2.3.1

106.2.2 Additional data • Except projects using BIM-IPD process see 106.2.3.1

106.2.3.1 Building Information Modeling – Integrated Project Delivery Projects When proposed by the permit applicant and when acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, the BIM-IPD process may be utilized, replacing the requirements of 106.2.3, with the following permitting and inspection steps.

a). At the project start, the owner’s project team (Architect, Engineer, Contractor, et al) shall meet with the Code Enforcement Official (CEO) to determine the prevailing code compliance strategy for the full scope of the project, to be documented in an electronic Appendix B format or an equivalent format, acceptable to the CEO.

b). The CEO may issue a single project master permit, based on the initial project description and code compliance strategy agreement. Commentary: The CEO should work collaboratively to review building components or details as scheduled by the owner’s project team

c). The CEO shall inspect built work, as described in Section 107of this code.

c.1). Concurrence on compliance with the code, with respect to both the model and built product, shall be gained before inspections are approved.

d) The owner’s project team shall submit a validation document, at project substantial completion, documenting the building as constructed and compliance with the NC State Building Code, for records retention by the AHJ.

Validation document: may be a three dimensional model, two dimensional electronic drawings and records, or a combination of both, accurately reflecting the completed building as approved by the code official in the field, and verified with respect to same.

• Where the validation document varies from the approved virtual model regarding building code compliance, the related Architect/Engineer must approve the change.

• Receipt of the validation document shall be a condition on issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

BIM: model based technology linked with a data base of project information, using three dimensional, real time dynamic modeling software, to plan all building construction. The model encompasses building geometry, spatial relationships, geographic information, and quantities and properties of building components.

IPD: a project delivery method that integrates key participants (owner, Architect, Engineer, contractor, code official, et al), systems, business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively plans and constructs facilities. The collaborative process begins in early design and continues through all phases of design, fabrication and construction.

Commentary: this applies to any project delivery method employing three dimensional modeling software, to virtually construct all building components, by a collaborative team based process from design start to construction completion.

Figure 29: BIM/IPD Building Code Council Amendment — State of North Carolina



Summary of Session 3 • BIM for the AHJ is a work product, not a process

• It is not a box of technology, but an intelligent, rich model object database submitted for review

• Operating in a hybrid 2D/3D Digital environment is a major step forward, but also a huge improvement in consistency, quality and productivity

• Checking the model for compliance, as well as reviewing plans digitally for detail represents huge efficiency gains for reviewers.

• The model is only useful if the author has populated it with the required data

Course Summary • The time is NOW to move to the Digital Review Process.

• Waiting does not serve anyone and just keeps an inconsistent practice in place.

• Transition will be a challenge, but only because it calls for change in behavior.

• People will learn new skills and the job will become more appealing to today’s technology-savvy workforce

• There is no halfway model. Commit and you will see the benefits! It won’t cost less next year!



Appendix 1: Getting Rid of Government Paper - A Short History The need to reduce the amount of paper in government and industry is often taken for granted. But it hasn’t been easy to cut back, much less eliminate paper in government, even when the law demands it.

The Paper Reduction Act (PRA; 1980 under the Carter Administration, amended in 1995 under President Clinton), followed by the Government Paper Elimination Act (GPEA; 1998 under Clinton) mandated that the federal government reduce the amount of paper used to conduct business within itself and with the citizenry. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was assigned as the overseer of these mandates, along with the creation of a new OMB agency: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

The PRA 1980 required each agency to reduce the amount of paper 15% by 1982 through a variety of means, but did not specifically account for technological developments and tools that would enable compliance. With the advent of the Internet, these Acts led to a more rapid deployment of electronic media, web sites, the reduction of forms and form creation, and the development of secure document exchange methods, notably the National Institute of Standards’ (NIST) promotion of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certification and validation technology to maintain security and records between the agencies and their parties.

The GPEA specifically targeted the year 2003 as a deadline for each agency to be in compliance with the OMB recommendations and guidelines with respect to the mandates: providing an alternative, paperless means of accessing, gathering and providing up-to-date information securely.

In 2000, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) published a report that discussed the various challenges GPEA compliance presented as a way to warn Congress that it would be difficult to meet the GPEA deadline of October 21, 2003 because of:

• Budget constraints that arise from deploying and maintaining electronic and

• The inability to efficiently manage investments in technology and to predict the ultimate value and operational effectiveness of electronic systems

traditional infrastructure

• The need to hire an entirely new class of IT worker within the agencies

• The amount of training required for the effective use of systems by existing workers

• Acquiring sufficient network infrastructure and bandwidth to support traffic

The above issues are instructive; with minor exception they mirror the very same challenges that plague state and local jurisdictions, and specifically departments deploying a digital review system. These challenges are extended by the fact that, whereas the federal government had a centralized authority in the OMB to oversee the management and execution of the mandates and hold agencies accountable, state and local offices have typically compartmentalized and/or departmentalized paperless mandates (if they exist at all), and often lack the focus and rigor of an enforcement agent.



Another key aspect of the federal mandates was that they did not actually require the complete elimination of paper, only an alternative means to paper. The accommodation of those who do not have Internet access or simply choose to use paper continues today as an obligatory reason to support paper transactions, albeit on an increasingly limited basis. This is also mirrored in state and local practices. Finally, the introduction of electronic tools and systems has actually enabled an increase in certain uses of paper, especially as they relate to personal and workgroup printing.

A report from 2009 revealed that the federal government still wastes up to $440 million on unnecessary printing, and that more than a third of the nearly 19 Billion pages printed in 2008-9 were unnecessary. Again, these extreme numbers are likely to be imitated to a certain degree at the state and local levels of government.

At the Municipal Level — City of Philadelphia Regarding the local level, it would be impossible to capture in this document all the activity related to reducing paper that has been considered and implemented across thousands of communities nationwide, and distill from it a specific methodology or process. However, the City of Philadelphia provides an instructive example of a municipal government that as recently as 2007 initiated a top-down proposal for paper reduction across a wide range of departments and services in its PAPERLESS GOVERNMENT: Maximizing the Transformative Power of Technology brief (land use and construction plan review was not mentioned specifically in the proposal). A PDF of the document can be found here:

http://greenforphiladelphia.ngphost.com/sites/greenforphiladelphia.ngphost.com/files/Paperless%20Government%202.3%20--%20April%202009_1.pdf

The City’s budget crisis was the lead driver for the proposal overall, and Paperless Government addresses the entire spectrum of paper-based processes for every department and service – a sweeping, broad-brush perspective. But the core principles for paper reduction within a complex organization are the same:

• Multi-level buy-in with strong leadership starting at the top, • Careful planning, • Sustained education and policy reinforcement, • A commitment to measure results and adjust for improvement. Capable web, data and document management technology is assumed as the only option to replace a paper system, but care is taken to mention that technology used improperly for its own sake (read: capriciously, as a means of “kingdom-building” for CIOs) can be burdensome. In Philadelphia, a strong, centralized IT department was viewed as a core requirement for overall success.

http://greenforphiladelphia.ngphost.com/sites/greenforphiladelphia.ngphost.com/files/Paperless%20Government%202.3%20--%20April%202009_1.pdf�

http://greenforphiladelphia.ngphost.com/sites/greenforphiladelphia.ngphost.com/files/Paperless%20Government%202.3%20--%20April%202009_1.pdf�

transitioning to a digital review process – going...

Documents