Draft Minutes
National Alliance Technology Task Force Meeting
May 28, 2003, 9:00 a.m. – Noon
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
OPENING
Robert Wible, NCSBCS Executive Director and Secretary to the National Alliance, thanked Alliance partner, National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), for hosting the Technology Task Force meeting. He noted that a number of task force members sent their regrets that they could not join the day’s meeting due to scheduling conflicts. Mr. Wible noted that several of those members, including the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), were however providing input on some of the task force work products to be discussed during the meeting.
The following were in attendance:
Ho Wing Sit, Accela
Richard Jackson, FIATECH (participated via telephone)
David Harris, NIBS
Sandy Shaw, NIBS
Kent Reed, NIST/BFRL
Robert Wible, NCSBCS
Howard Gordon, RAMSAFE Technologies
Martha Braddock, RAMSAFE Technologies
Bob Wible went over the objectives for the day’s meeting which he noted were to: update task force members on Alliance activities, review task force work products for 2003, and hold a discussion on the status of the software and hardware industry to be required by state and local jurisdictions in their future procurements to have the software and hardware they provide be interoperable. In addition, Mr. Wible noted that in the task force’s discussion of its role in the development of a prototype secure database for first responders of as-built designs, that one of the existing first responder database providers, RAMSAFE Technologies, would give a demonstration of their services. (See Attachment A for copy of the Agenda for the May 28 meeting).
Mr. Wible distributed to attendees: an update report on National Alliance activities (Attachment B), a copy of the minutes from the task force’s previous meeting, and hardcopy of the Technology Task Force’s portion of the Alliance segment of the NCSBCS website (including the online listing of software providers and jurisdictions using them). Mr. Wible briefly described each of the four task force work products for 2003.
Those products are:
ALLIANCE UPDATE
To open the update on the work of the Alliance, Mr. Wible briefly noted other streamlining process deliverables being worked on by other Alliance task forces. He then asked several members to describe activities of their organizations that are relevant to the fulfillment of the task force’s mission statement:
"To enable the nation’s construction industry to build faster, better, safer and at less cost, the Technology Task Force will assemble, develop, and demonstrate a set of tools to the National Alliance, jurisdictions, and construction industry that increase the effective use of information technology in the nation’s building regulatory process."
Ric Jackson, Director of FIATECH, and David Harris, President of NIBS, shared with attendees the related and supporting work being done by their organizations in the area of information technology.
Dr. Jackson described FIATECH, its structure, business model, membership, projects, and associations, as well as its Capital Projects Technology Roadmap (CPTR) Initiative. The CPTR documents, available from www.fiatech.org, contain a comprehensive technology research, development, and deployment (RD&D) agenda for the industry. The goal of the initiative is to identify critical technology needs that crosscut all sectors of the industry, and all processes from design to engineering, construction, operation, maintenance, demolition and dismantling, including the building regulatory process, and to identify requirements for focused R&D to meet those challenges. He stressed the importance of close coordination between the National Alliance’s work and the FIATECH roadmapping project and his organization’s active involvement in supporting the development and national distribution of the Technology Task Force’s work products.
Dr. Jackson also described the importance to the construction industry and consumers of the funding by the U.S. Congress of the Enterprise Integration Act passed last year. He noted several ways in which those funds, which would be administered through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), could increase the efficiency of the construction and operation of buildings. It also was noted that such funding also could help speed up the process by which interoperable computer technology was available for use in the construction industry. Dr. Jackson noted that a coalition of national organizations were working to seek such funding and the benefits to both the nation’s economy and to homeland security from applying such technology in the construction industry.
The FIATECH Director invited Technology Task Force members to visit the FIATECH website at www.fiatech.org for more information on his organization and to learn more about the importance of the Enterprise Integration Act.
Regarding the task force’s issue of interoperability, Dr. Jackson noted that FIATECH had recently executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Alliance for Interoperability (IAI) (another task force member) to work together to accelerate the interchange of construction information across different interfaces in the construction and building operation processes.
FIATECH invited the Technology Task Force to participate with them in a meeting that FIATECH and IAI were planning on holding later in June with the software industry to discuss the speed with which that industry was prepared to work together towards developing an interoperability standard for their products.
Dr. Jackson’s presentation was followed by an update by David Harris and Sandy Shaw from NIBS regarding the work of the International Alliance on Interoperability and their efforts to build IFCs (information function classifications) for the construction process. See Attachment C for NIBS’ IT-related programs.
REVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE INDUSTRY TO HAVE THEIR DATA BE INTEROPERABLE
A general discussion was held among meeting participants on the current status of the nation’s hardware and software industry to become interoperable in their exchange and use of construction data. In opening this discussion, it was noted that, in general, hardware and software firms had been resisting the concept of developing an interoperability standard for their products and services to the construction industry (including to building regulators) to assure that they retain their current shares in that market.
Mr. Wible noted that, in some of his conversations with software vendors, he had made the point that as long as hardware and software remained proprietary and not interoperable, many jurisdictions would not invest in restructuring their building regulatory process and then purchase and use such information technology. The interoperability of software would go a long way to overcome the horror stories of a jurisdiction purchasing some software from one vendor (for say online permitting) and then that software not ever working and the city having to expend perhaps $200,000 or more to find that out and then scrap it.
Mr. Wible reported that some software vendors are indeed recognizing that the above has restricted the size of their market. Instead of having a large percentage of the nation’s 44,000 jurisdictions that adopt and enforce building codes use information technology in their building regulatory process, the IT community has had only a 5% to 6% penetration of that potential market place. Mr. Ho Wing Sit from Accela Corporation added that the above reality has had his firm join IAI and look towards working with other firms in creating IFCs leading to an interoperability process for online permitting and other codes administration applications.
NIBS and IAI’s work with computerized design hardware from several firms (Bentley, Intergraph Avira and Primavera) was then described by David Harris and Sandy Shaw.
At this time the future Alliance goal of being able to significantly reduce the regulatory time in the construction process by having computerized building plans reviews done on interoperable machines with interoperable software was discussed. It was noted that online plans reviews faced two major barriers before becoming a reality in this nation.
The first barrier is one of the state of the art and cost to building departments of having large enough monitors to effectively do plans reviews, especially for more complex structures. It was noted that significant reductions in the cost of large flat plasma screens would help this area, as well as the hiring and training of a whole new generation of plans reviewers by building departments – people who are comfortable with computers and computerized plans reviews.
In this discussion it was noted that, even in jurisdictions that now allowed for electronic plans submittals, many of those jurisdictions were then printing out the plans to have them reviewed rather than conducting reviews on a computer monitor.
The second major barrier identified was the lack of national uniformity in the construction codes adopted and enforced in the nation. It was agreed that while perhaps small sections of code reviews (e.g. egress, energy conservation, architectural accessibility) might come into use first, it would take a major effort at national codes coordination to get the diverse array of state and local amendments to the nation’s existing model construction codes to get the necessary economies of scale to develop software to do plans reviews of the entire building structure. (Singapore is now doing this in their nation.)
In that regard, NIBS reported on a recent IAI-International Code Council (ICC) agreement to work together to develop a set of IFCs and code domain for interoperability.
The benefit of plans being submitted and reviewed in 3 or 4-D was discussed. It was noted that at present between 80 and 90% of the electronic plans designs and submittals were only being done in two dimensions and that 3-D was only being done between 10 and 20% of the time.
The value to first responders to have plans of important portions of buildings (especially for critical structures) available to them online as 3 and 4-D representations over the current 2-D electronic plans was highlighted. Attendees stressed the critical need for such a database to be interoperable.
Given the above barriers it was opined that without either a major push by government in coordination with industry it would be ten or more years before online electronic plans reviews would be a reality in this nation.
TASK FORCE ACTION ON INTEROPERABILITY ISSUE
The task force discussed steps they and the National Alliance should take to help speed up that process and also overcome barriers the task force then identified existed within the hardware and software industry to have their online permitting, codes administration, and inspection software programs be interoperable.
In that regard, Kent Reed (NIST) said that it would be helpful for the task force to first come up with and distribute to the hardware and software industry a definition of what the National Alliance meant by interoperability.
Basically there are two different kinds of interoperability – one is less difficult to achieve then the other.
The first kind (and less difficult to achieve) is where data can be seamless passed from one application to another. An example is the IAI’s IFC system whereby data on a building can be passed from the designer using Autocad or Autodesk onto the construction specifier and construction cost estimator who can then run that same data through a different software package to determine the cost of construction materials needed to build that building.
The second kind of interoperability is more complex. It involves not only the first kind, where data can be exchanged between software packages for different parts of the construction and building operations processes, but where all of the software for each of those processes are equivalent and can transfer that data freely among themselves. This is the interoperability of interchangeable plug and play software which most state and local jurisdictions have told the Alliance they truly want.
The advantage of this second form is obvious in that it frees the jurisdiction, should the need ever arise for either technical or cost reasons, to readily change software vendors for say their permitting system or their online plans reviews or onsite inspections. This form of interoperability would be able to operate on a diffuse network of servers with key based access to different people in the building design, construction and operation process, based upon their role. Those individuals (including in a manmade or natural disaster the first responders) then could work across a distributed network of servers which makes the data less vulnerable to an attack or being shut down by any other kind of event.
It was agreed by the task force members present that the goal of the National Alliance was the second more complex form of interoperability. Task force members Reed and Wible said they would work together to produce and distribute to the task force a clear statement of the Alliance’s definition of interoperability.
It also was agreed that, while the Alliance’s goal was interoperability that would make software used by building departments for various regulatory functions interchangeable in the development of procurement guidelines for acquiring hardware and software, the Alliance would first recommend that jurisdictions at a minimum require that all information technology products meet the first and more simple definition of interoperability. (This recommendation will be included in the issuance in late June of the Alliance’s work product--model procurement guidelines).
The task force then turned towards what immediate steps they should take, besides participating in the upcoming FIATECH/IAI meeting with the software industry on interoperability, towards getting that industry to begin to work with the Alliance and its partners in developing an interoperability standard for construction data.
Mr. Reed suggested, and the task force members concurred with, a two-step process that was doable within a short time frame and could lead to at least the first more simple type of interoperability being accomplished in the near-term.
That process is to request software vendors to provide the task force with a description of their input data requirements for their software. Specifically, have the vendors tell the Alliance what are their data requirements for their critical data.
Based upon receipt of the above information from a number of vendors, the task force then would compile that input into a document to be circulated to all vendors to ask them if the data requirements in that document were common to the data in their software packages.
The above then would define for the Alliance a common format for software used in online permitting and other processes from which IFCs and a basic interoperability requirement could be derived for future procurements of such software by state and local governments.
Mr. Wible thanked the task force for this input. He noted that he would work with Mr. Reed to refine the definitions of the two different types of interoperability and scope out the above tasks for the Alliance’s interoperability efforts. He noted that he would be sharing the output from that work with other task force members, including the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, which were unable to attend this meeting.
Mr. Wible also noted that, based upon the day’s discussion, the draft procurement guidelines that were being developed and that would be circulated to the task force (and to the Planning and Coordinating Task Force members for their review) in mid-June, would not at this time include interoperability requirements.
SECURE FIRST RESPONDER DATABASE OF AS-BUILT DESIGNS, EVACUATION PLANS, AND OTHER KEY CONTACT INFORMATION
The task force was updated on the status of the Alliance’s efforts to develop an outline of the need for and content of a secure database for first responders of as-built designs, evacuation plans, and other key contact information.
A detailed outline of that system developed by the Alliance during the winter of 2002-2003 was distributed (Attachment D). Mr. Wible indicated that, pending additional funding, the next step in that project was to assemble an implementation committee comprised of representatives from key stakeholders including first responders and develop a plan for developing and field testing a prototype of the secure database. He further informed the task force they would have an ongoing role reviewing the technical aspects of the implementation plan developed by the new work group.
Mr. Wible then welcomed to the meeting two representatives from one of the current firms that had produced a product that provided key building, bio-chemical, and other data to first responders. The representatives from RAMSAFE Technologies had been invited to the meeting to give members a look at what kind of information and delivery systems for first responders were currently available so as to have an idea as to what software and hardware might be used in the prototype systems the National Alliance was charged to develop.
Mr. Howard Gordon from RAMSAFE Technologies was then introduced. Mr. Gordon described the origin of the RAMSAFE product out of Oak Ridge and the Department of Energy and its evolution from a database used there to its use in the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996 and expansion and use in the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City.
A demonstration of the RAMSAFE product was then given and Alliance members asked questions regarding that product and its interface with first responders in other parts of the nation. Mr. Gordon answered questions regarding his product and offered a website link to the product for Alliance members. (Contact the Alliance Secretary, Robert Wible at NCSBCS, for access to the website demonstration program.)
Attendees thanked Mr. Gordon for his presentation.
TASK FORCE WORK ASSIGNMENTS AND TIMETABLE
The task force briefly reviewed the current status of each of their work products and the timetable for further development. It was noted members could visit the Alliance portion of the NCSBCS website within the next week and see the updates being posted to the online listings of software that supports the building regulatory process and listing of jurisdictions using software.
Mr. Wible noted that in mid-June task force members would receive for their review and comment the draft model procurement guidelines for jurisdictions to use in procuring hardware and software for use in their building regulatory programs. Members will be asked to submit their comments on the drafts prior to their next task force meeting scheduled for the end of June.
The task force’s earlier action and timetable on the issue of interoperability standards for hardware and software used in the building regulatory process was reviewed. Mr. Wible noted that he and Mr. Reed would have their work products out to task force members for review and comment in early June.
Regarding the proposed meeting with the hardware and software industry to discuss interoperability, Mr. Wible noted he would get back to everyone within the next week with the exact date and location of the June meeting FIATECH was setting up with the industry to discuss this issue. He noted he would confirm with FIATECH their offer made earlier in the day that task force members who wished to attend that session would be welcome to do so.
There being no further business to come before the Technology Task Force, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m. with thanks to the National Institute of Building Sciences for hosting the morning’s meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Wible, Secretariat to the National Alliance