The 2nd edition of the CIC BIM Protocol was published on 10th April 2018 by the Construction Industry Council, replacing the first edition issued in 2013.
The introduction of the Responsibility Matrix
The new edition sees the Model Production and Delivery Table replaced by the Responsibility Matrix. The matrix will now become the vehicle for articulating the models, data and information to be delivered across design and construction. This notable change clearly conveys the message that BIM Level 2 is concerned with not just models, but data and information provision too.
It is also clear that the updated protocol should be incorporated into the contracts of all project team members (clause 3.1.1). This gives much needed clarity and means that the protocol is ‘not just for model originators’, but for all parties.
The Responsibility Matrix should detail the:
Specified Information i.e. the models, data and information to be produced, shared and published (via the Common Data Environment (CDE) for the entirety of the project
Responsibility for the production of the individual aspects of specified information. In allocating responsibility, consideration should be given to the likely appointment/ contract structure so that it reflects contracting roles
Permitted purpose which includes the:
a) Level of definition (split between level of information and level of detail)
b) Status code (approved suitability for use at ‘issued’ stage)
c) Functional state (WIP, shared, published, archived)
d) Purpose for how the models, data and information will be used. This is particularly important when specified information is a 3D design or construction model. The purpose will provide context for model originators and help ensure model data is classified with appropriate component parameters populated.
Through the introduction of the Responsibility Matrix, the updated protocol adopts a much closer relationship with BS 1192:2007 + A2:2016 - detailing how files should be named, revised and associated with a defined status. This is a positive move because whether you love/hate this standard, structure and consistency are essential for CDEs to effectively serve their purpose (note the Protocol brings welcome clarity around the CDE putting the onus on the Employer to make sure that a CDE is available and used for the entirety of the project).
However, defining the status codes and functional state of the specified information in the Responsibility Matrix will need careful consideration.
What else do we need to know?
The Information Particulars (Appendix 2) brings in the Employer’s Information Requirements (EIR) and BIM Execution Plan (BEP) but in addition provides the ability to articulate specific requirements which aren’t covered by the either. However, giving the BEP equal status to the EIRs could bring complications as the BEP is a fluid document which develops as more parties are introduced into a project.
PAS 1192-5 (released in 2015) sets out how model, data and information security requirements should be considered, articulated and managed in either the EIR or Built Asset Security Information Requirements (BASIR). Clause 8 of the new protocol sets out the process in the event of a breach of the security requirements, with Appendix 3 highlighting the specific requirements of the EIR/ BASIR.
So, what do we think? Is the 2nd Edition an improvement or does it cloud BIM Level 2 requirements? I believe it’s an improvement, bringing clarity to wider model, data and information production, management and application requirements. However, we will need to make sure that the Responsibility Matrix is logical, complete and reflects contracting structures.
Associate Professor, University of Nottingham