Building Smarter in

the Digital Age -

A National Forum

 

Summary Reports

from Four Work Groups:

 

 

Discussion and identification of barriers, solutions, possible actions:

Group #1 - Permitting & Plan Review Process

        -Moderator: Stephen Garnier, Fairfax County, Virginia

 

Group #2 - Marriage of Plan Review, Field Inspection and Occupancy Permitting

        -Moderator:  Scott Hassell, Rand Corporation

 

Group #3 - Integration with the Rest of the Building Process

        -Moderator:  David Harris, NIBS

 

Group #4 - Re-engineering the Regulatory System

        -Moderator:  George Arimes, American Planning Association

 

Return to Main Menu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

********************Group 1******************

 

Priorities of Barriers

 

 1) Funding

        a)     Use of Resources

        b)     Focus on Software

2) Cooperation and Communication of stakeholders (Govt., IT Providers)

3) Cultural environment (in/ext)

4) Tech/Practical Plan, Review Barriers

5) Interoperability

6) Existing Process not geared for automation

 

 

Solutions

 

Use of Resources

 

a) Sharing the product

b) Cooperative Purchasing

c)  State developed Model of IT Solutions for Jurisdictions

d)  Lobby Govt officials at all levels use of IT

e)  Political and Financial support from Private industry

f)  Establish fee incentives

g)  Surcharge

 

Focus on Software

 

a) Software for low hanging fruit

b) Simple permits and plans

c) Residential

d) Modular Planning

 

 

 Cooperation and Communication of stakeholders (Govt., IT Providers

           

a)     Initiate dialog (Incentive needed)

b)     Create an IT Chat Room (Centralized Resource for Govt to identify

         for Research)

c)      Encouragement by the industry for stakeholders to participate and partner

 

 

Cultural environment (in/ext) (resistance to change, perceive security issues)

 

 a)     Education and training

 b)     Phased Approach to Implementation

 c)     Change focus in hiring practice

 d)     Identify Expense and status Quo

 

 

Tech/Practical Plan, Review Barriers

 

a)     Sharing Success with other jurisdictions (Best practice)

b)     Funding

c)      Encourage development and improvement in Technology

d)     Focusing on benefits

 

 

Interoperability

 

a)     Buy in by Software vendors (IT providers)

b)     Defining

 

Existing Process not geared for automation

 

 a)     Identify commonalties

 

Back to the top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

****************************Group 2*****************

Barriers

   

  • Lack of standards for information transfer

  • CAD drawings, specs

  • Longevity issues

  • Archiving

  • Quantity of information

  • Volume of plans

  • Lack of tools for plan reviewer

  • Legacy data

  • Field access to data/plans

  • Legislative barriers – electronic signatures

  • ECommerce laws

  • How to “seal” documents

  • Look to medical community for comparison

  • Lack of coordination of review at plan review, inspection and occupancy permit – inconsistency

  • Lack of communication with IT as to exactly what the problem is

  • Cost

  • Local relationships/vested interests are anti-competitive to outsiders

  • Governments need to work together in coordinated manner to save effort and money

  • Status quo is hard ti overcome

  • Perpetuation of bad habits

  • More than converting the present situation that starting from zero base

  • Multiple layers of oversight

  • Perception that we are all different

  • Multiple objectives of regulation

  • Safety

  • Health

  • Unions

  • Environment

  • More is better

  • Inspections made without real need

  • Waste of effort

  • Not all code issues have equal value

  • Union caused problems can drive costs – can increase costs

  • Code staff needs training

  • Changing job duties

  • Increase costs for salaries

  • Supervisory concern for loss of trained staff

  • Perception that efficiency will lead to job loss/downsizing

  • Leadership needs to counter this

  • Approach by supervisor can effect this by showing the improvement that is achieved

  • Upper management does not coordinate amongst tasks from top

  • Multiple methods of satisfying similar requirements

  • Conflicts between regulations: code to code

  • No agreement on what should be done, how to do it

  • Negative perception of building department can cause funding/political support problems relative to competing for funds

  • Formally failed IT efforts cause staff to less enthusiastic

  • Staff not included in planning

 

Clusters:

 

1) Technology

 

  • Archiving

  • Quantity of information

  • Volume of plans

  • Lack of tools for plan reviewer

  • Legacy data

  • Field access to data/plans

  • Lack of standards for information transfer

  • CAD drawings, specs

  • Longevity issues

  • Archiving

 

2) Culture

 

  • Code staff needs training

  • Changing job duties

  • Increase costs for salaries

  • Supervisory concern for loss of trained staff

  • Perception that efficiency will lead to job loss/downsizing

  • Leadership needs to counter this

  • Approach by supervisor can effect this by showing the improvement that is achieved

  • Formally failed IT efforts cause staff to less enthusiastic

  • Staff not included in planning

 

 

3)

  • Upper management does not coordinate amongst tasks from top

  • Multiple methods of satisfying similar requirements

  • Conflicts between regulations: code to code

  • No agreement on what should be done, how to do it

  • Multiple objectives of regulation

  • Safety

  • Health

  • Unions

  • Environment

  • More is better

  • Multiple layers of oversight

   

 

Solutions

 

Ideas for new IT equipment or usage

 

  • Code “footprint” used in Kansas – Fire Marshal

  • Digitized info for use in life in building

  • Uses simple scanned drawings

  • There is a national CAD standard, but it has not been adopted locally

  • Expanded acceptance is necessary

  • Third party inspection usage

  • Certification by master tradesman

  • GPS and digital photos for review by office

  • Click on diagram and communicate with field inspector – master control document

  • Wearable three D headset for viewing plans while at site

  • Customizable workflow software

  • Wireless contact

  • Value to having as-built data

  • Collaboration during problem solving/development

  • Collaborative automation

  • Flexibility of software

 

Customer service

 

  • Interactive relationship while developing plans

  • Comments come through common portal

 

What needs to be done to facilitate development of solutions

 

  • Collaborative automation development

  • Modular software that can be picked and chosen

  • Common language to assist state procurement

  • Providers need to understand state procurement process

  • Standardization of governments’ needs is important

  • Benevolent dictator

  • Compatibility

  • Discipline necessary

  • What can NCSBCS do from its perspective

  • Establish two levels of performance

  • Bottom/minimum level

  • Other

  • Single “backbone”

  • Partnership to collectively call for changes

  • Aggregate power

 

Summary to present at lunch:

 

  • Cultural barriers

  • Coordination barriers

  • Technical barriers

  • Solutions

  • Common portals

  • Standardization

  • Speak with one voice

  • Regional discussions

  • Two levels of standard performance

  • Aggregate codes, demands, funding

  • Exploit this

 

  Back to the top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*****************************Group 3*******************

 

Integration with Rest of the Building Process 

 Group #3                        June 1, 2001

Objectives

Barriers

Solutions

Action Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Building related and integrated software programs I.e., CADD system, include regulatory requirements during design

Lack of uniform set of standards

Demonstrate the market/benefits                 

Using examples/case studies  Reducing local amendments   Reducing and publishing differences

Sharing of solutions with others (Don't reinvent the wheel)

 

Adequacy of data

 

 

 

Lack of data bases

 

 

 

Data unaccessibility

 

 

 

Concern for security and privacy

 

 

Varying local admendments

 

 

Keeping data current

 

 

 

Poor quality of data

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Data interoperability among all software programs - sharing of data.

Industry fragmentation

Developing consensus of standards

 

Intellectual properties

Develop a strong voice to work with software developers

 

No incentive for software mfrs to provide interoperability

 

Develop case studies

 

 

Speed of changes in data

 

Develop data formats that transcend software and hardware updates and changes

 

 

Speed of software updates/changes

 

Create market and demand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Have the ability to access standards and building codes by jurisdiction nationwide

Resources (funding)

Establish a national repository for codes, standards and regulations

 

Lack of sponsorship

Start small and build - would be incremental

 

 

Volume/magnitude - number of jurisdictions

 

 

 

Control - proprietary - return on investment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Establish uniform set of technical standards - for long term objective

Number of interested parties involved

 

 

Geographic, climatic variables

 

 

Material and building process

 

 

Lack of sponsorship

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Organize/standardize all processes where the information would be available on the internet - have a consistent way to present information on the internet

 

Number of interested parties

 

Establish and make available a national portal of building officials, buidling codes, and related information - a clearing house of all data

 

Material and building process