top of page
Search
Writer's pictureKen Flannigan

At least we agree on the "L" and the "O"

Over the past 10 years as 3D design and planning workflows became more common, there has been a nagging issue that drags down even the most well executed project: model reliance. In other words, how can I trust what I receive from an upstream designer without modeling the whole thing from scratch?


Enter LOD, or Level of Development. Or LOD, Level of detail, or LOG, level of geometry, or LOIN, level of information needed, or LOM, level of model, or any of the other "LO" concepts so numerous that many have resorted to using LOx to encompass all.

The goal with LOx, in its various forms, is to attach a number to each model item to describe the accuracy, detail or overall progress of each of the element types involved. That way when a model is received, I should be able to use LOx to determine how complete the overall model is for the goals and needed deliverables at that time. If elements need to be more detailed or developed those models will need to be updated by the responsible parties and the LOx "code" would be changed to reflect the progress of those individual elements.

It should work perfectly, a designer works in lower LOx and as decisions are made new stakeholders enter and take their respective parts of the model further. It sounds so simple, so what goes wrong?

Two things:

First, people cannot agree on the detail and data that is appropriate and valuable to include or even who should be responsible. It is common for LOx expectation to be delivered in a somewhat ambiguous narrative format by the construction manager as part of a larger requirements document. Usually though, the responsibility is not specified or it is specified incorrectly and the standards available are ignored.

Second, there is still a lot of guessing. That guessing is a lack of acknowledgment that decisions need to be made for LOx to progress. Clear LOx data included in the model elements based on a standard should cause you to see dependencies that are critical to coordination. For instance, secondary steel and rebar design cannot progress to a high LOx until items causing structural penetrations and that need tie in or interface to the structure are determined. This rarely happens in the right order so lots of rework may still be required.

There are lots of great tools and standards to use (a couple links included at the bottom) but this really starts with including LOx data, visualizing that data, and making sure the right people are involved to increase LOx when needed.

This is a big subject with lots of variation and nuance that lies at the heart of improving digital planning efficiency but look on the bright side… at least we agree on the "L" and the "O"





4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

コメント


bottom of page