Visión y objetivos institucionales.

CI/SfB is the better known system of classification, and the one that all others seem to derive from. This system is still implemented in several countries, Portugal included, mainly because it was the first to be recognized widespread and secondly because it has been in use for more than 30 years. The most reported problem is that it does not cover nor comprehend the use of computerized technologies. Although it can be adapted to computerized technologies, its adoption for that purpose is bound to demand the use of creativity by its users, hence losing its standardized characteristic.

There is also the matter of exchange information at an international level. This was not considered in a classification system until the British Standards Institute developed and published BS ISO 12006-2, Building Construction - Organization of Information about construction works - Part 2: Framework for classification of information, which intended to overcome this problem, since it identifies classes for the organization of information and indicates how they are related. But as a framework, it allows classification tables to vary in detail to suit local needs and does not provide a complete operational classification system.

66

This framework can be of utmost importance when trying to develop a system of classification and has helped produce Uniclass and Omniclass. In the faceted classification system these two schemes, apart from being the most recent, seem to be the ones that present tables and principles that cover different and broader aspects of the construction industry activities, people and tools, and they also establish some space for increased developments where issues might incur, such as developments in technologies that are applied and product developments.

CAWS and MasterFormat, as classification systems of work sections and elements (specifications and cost analysis), are the most widely used systems but do not, in themselves, offer an answer to classification of information in a broader way; they have to be complemented with the use of classification systems such as Uniclass

or Omniclass.

UNICLASS is considered to be the substitute of CI/SfB, and is a classification system for the construction industry that aims to organise library materials and structure product literature and project information. Being based on CAWS, and advised to be used with it, it also presents a handicap.

The Omniclass system of classification is reported to be tackling the total classification problem (Robert, 2005) and appears as the most adequate solution thus far. Indeed, Omniclass raises high expectations regarding its use and implementation, which is hardly surprising: OmniClass aims to go further than any other. It is the most recently published initiative in classification of information in the construction industry, entailing almost all other initiatives being held so far, and it intends to classify all information created during the whole life cycle of the built environment. It remains to be seen if OmniClass’ implementation will meet these expectations.

Is there a real possibility to develop and create a unique international standard classification system that can be used or adapted to different or similar realities?

Omniclass and Uniclass aim to be that classification system, and ISO 12006-2

appears to effectively be that framework, given that most of the initiatives derive from it. But some questions are left unanswered. If Uniclass is the British equivalent to the US Omniclass, then the systems should enable cross-referencing, yet, literature

67

lacks any remarks regarding this issue. Also, the OmniClass system comprises

MasterFormat, which in theory should make the latter redundant, but again here the literature is silent.

In order to establish a framework for a classification system, as the one being studied for application in Portugal, development efforts should always strive to be

ISO-compatible, enabling smoother exchange of information, and using existing systems and compatible initiatives to avoid duplication of work.

Developments in technologies to improve communication amongst stakeholders involved in the project construction process have been considered and represent possible methods for disseminating and exchanging information throughout the project and construction process, but they also present practitioners with problems related with their use and implementation (Howard and Björk, 2008) and this has also to be considered. If one has the tools but does not know how to use them in an efficient way, then what is the point of constantly developing or upgrading them?

It is interesting to find that the UK is no different from Portugal in this regard: in both countries practitioners in the field have an established idea that BIM is the future but only a really small percentage seem to know exactly what that means. Many practitioners do not know what this means and the semi-structured interviews conducted in Portugal showed exactly that (see Chapter 5).

The study and integration of BIM in this project is motivated by the ideas arising from the survey on the subject: practitioners mentioned it although none of them seemed aware of what it is and so the researcher felt compelled to further investigate this matter. It is now clear that BIM, either referred to as a process or a technology, is not the answer to the recognized problem of classification of information in the construction design project in Portugal, at least not on its own. This is not the same as saying that the solution will not pass through its effective adoption.

68

Already BIM standards are incorporating classification systems and once again different countries are applying, within BIM standards, their own classification systems - Omniclass in the U.S and Uniclass in the UK. This is not necessarily a setback but it remains to be seen if BIM work production, which is in its core intends to enable interoperability, will in fact do so.

Building Information modeling initiatives being held are also IFC and STEP integrated with the resource to EXPRESS and XML languages and specifications which apparently make perfect sense, but in reality the information model application by stakeholders involved in the process is still far from IFC´s ideal.

If the researcher, who is truly committed to this project, has faced some obstacles in understanding some of these concepts and learning some of the proposed applications, how will the average practitioner in the field react to them?

A common factor within all these initiatives is that classification information systems and standards for communicating and exchanging information on the construction industry are extremely important, and even if practitioners are not aware of them they have to exist, especially in a globalized world.

The fact is that the process of project construction has changed considerably throughout recent years - methods have evolved, and outstanding innovation developments have occurred. Yet it seems that the human factor has not yet been thought through. There is a need to enable people working in the field to understand what they are doing when dealing with information management processes or, from a different perspective, information technology gets such an incredible boost that software development comprises all standardisation needed and classification and practitioners are free to ‘create’ without breaking or leaking the process of information management. Can software become that user friendly? Or will practitioners still need to know what they are doing to information throughout the construction process? It is believed that both are possible, and even better for the construction industry if combined.

69