How can technological innovation help the M&E sector deliver projects on time?

The M&E sector has gone through tremendous technological change within the past sixty years. Perhaps the most significant of them all was the introduction of Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Designing buildings went from a purely pencil to paper task to 3D modeling using sophisticated computer modelling software.

To get a better understanding of how technological innovation has impacted the delivery of M&E installations we caught up with a CAD team in one of our recent podcasts.

After listening to the podcast, you will have an overview of the following questions:

• What design software is commonly used and how can it help an M&E contractor?

• Why do M&E designs go through so many iterations?

• Is it possible for BIM to be the solution?

• How would communication and early engagement help reduce design iterations?

• How can M&E contractors help the process?

• Are there any emerging technologies that could impact the design of service supports?

• Are there any unseen external factors that are commonly overlooked which may impact a full design?

What design software is commonly used and how can it help an M&E contractor?

As the CAD team explains, most of the designs sent across are modeled in 3D, so naturally, we draw our models in 3D CAD. Over a certain size, Navisworks model becomes the industry standard. From a contractor’s point of view, it is always best to work with Navisworks models because in most cases the model enables designers to see everything in the surrounding environment to detect service clashes. This is critical, as in most cases designs are drawn up but the reality on-site is very different. Issues such as parasitic loading otherwise known as ‘piggy backing’ can mean clashes are very common, so if a support frame has been designed to set criteria and then that criteria changes, regardless of the technology used to create the design, the supplied design won’t be compliant.

Why, is it, that within the M&E sector, the first design is never the final?

There is no simple answer to this question. In other industries such as automotive, a quality-controlled timeline of procedures lead to fewer design iterations. Typically, within the M&E sector unforeseen circumstances, for example, changes to the specification of services as a result of pricing, delivery and availability, can mean models are sometimes inaccurate once they reach those that are designing the supports of the services.

Is it possible for BIM to be the solution?

According to ISO 19650:2019 BIM can be described as the “use of shared digital representation of a built asset to facilitate design, construction and operation processes to form a reliable basis for decisions”. As technology and digital data improved business information modelling (BIM) began to be utilised amongst principal contractors. However, not all contractors have access to the latest BIM framework. The recent release of the governments ‘construction playbook’ outlined a vision that all public sector contractors should use the UK BIM framework to standardise the many different data variables for a project. The Construction playbook also advocates the UK BIM framework to be utilised to suppliers as well. However, for the reality of many, entire supply chains do not have access or the technology to really make the most out of BIM. Unless BIM is universally applied across the entire supply chain then this is unlikely to make a different to the time it takes to deliver accurate supports for services.

How would communication and early engagement help reduce design iterations?

As with many issues around the M&E sector early and continued engagement between the entire supply chain can reduce the amount of time it takes between design and delivery of supports. For instance, in many cases, the supply of M&E supports is left to the last minute, along with the anchors/fixings. This last-minute approach means not enough attention and time is given to ensure communication and information flow runs seamlessly throughout the chain. As the information needs to flow vertically (up the chain), changes from one installer may impact the accuracy of information passed onto the designers of the supports. There have been occasions where due to the design accuracy of the original building model, and the fact that service installers have gone to meet their deadlines, designs for services supports have had to be redrawn.

How can M&E contractors help the process?

M&E contractors can play a significant role in helping the process. Their willingness to communicate with the entire supply chain early can help to minimise interruptions. This can be as simple as making the supplier aware of any changes to the services, the timeline of other installations. As well as early and continued engagement, it is important that we are provided with a 3D design model preferably within Navisworks, as that way we can see the 3D environment and can identify service clashes.

Are there any emerging technologies that could impact the design of service supports?

3D scanning is another form of technology that can help improve the accuracy of a design. For example, if a highly accurate 3D scan is provided of the whole site, it can help especially when you need literal millimetre accuracy. However, at the end of the day however accurate a Navisworks model or Revit model is it won’t ever be perfect on-site. 3D scanning technology will revolutionise the design of M&E supports, as you can’t miss anything.

Are there any unseen external factors that are commonly overlooked which may impact a full design?

There are two key factors that influence the design accuracy and delivery of designed supports.

Firstly, legislation and compliance will become a central issue that will force a contractor’s hands. As an example, if a design for M&E support has been ‘signed off/approved by the contractor and then the extra load is placed upon that support then the design is no longer valid. Within the M&E sector this is quite common, otherwise known as ‘piggy backing’. If a site failure occurs under these circumstances, it is the contractor that is liable not the supplier.

The second more deep-rooted problem is the necessary mindset change. Every person is a creature of habit, if their work is based upon time-critical decisions, it is highly unlikely that behaviour will change. Traditionally, within a project, services are seen as a priority but not the supports. It is only when the designers provide a full 3D CAD model rather than a 2D ‘fag packet’ drawing and there is a move towards the long term safety of a building rather than short-term costs, will there be a difference.