iTwins - Designers' Collaboration tool, please?

Thanks Dominic for your insight. 

As you may be aware we have a commercial offering called iTwin Design Review, which is aimed at removing the requirement to use "vendor" tools to review vendor specific "BIM" models.
ie reviewing a Revit building but also OpenRoads (or even Civil3D) in the same federated model.

Also in Oil & Gas a common format has been a holy grail for some time.

iTwin Design Review (which I am not sure I saw on your list) ... is an iModel.js solution which is part of an iTwin subscription is our commercial offering.  Yes you see some of that in the PCSG integration, but it is also part of our Asset Integration Management solution and you will see it being expanded across a lot of industry focused solutions.  You may have seen this also in the Hatch presentation where they "wrapped" the iTwin Design Review around their business workflow focused intranet.
iTwin Design Review is aimed at making design review and collaboration as simple as possible while removing the requirement for the user to have discreet knowledge of any design products,
A lot of the features are published on Youtube, but it is how our users are putting these features together to enable their workflows that is compelling. 

Sure the initial value is via the performance benefit in federating large models / pointclouds / reality mesh / gis layers and enabling larger project team members to review this, but when you start to consider spatial containment .. ie find me all of the bathrooms and ensure there is a WC / basin / shower in the room this becomes much more compelling

The ability to extend the application is also compelling and allows us to enable PAS1192-5 federation.  Again this should have been noticeable in the Safetibase presentation where a PAS1192-6  risk register is directly integrated with iTwin Design Review enabling immediate access to the risk register for project team members.

We are working hard on simplifying the integration to ProjectWise, but PAS1192 workflows means that there are many access points and ensuring only authorised users can access the correct models still requires some effort on the project digital engineers.  

However, we are starting to see design reviews being carried out using Teams, thus seeing a much more collaborative approach in these Covid times enabling a complete history of the IDR session, while also allowing the creation of actionable issues, integrated into the Issues Resolution.

Would be interesting to have your viewpoint on how iTwin Design Review and the wider CONNECT capabilities are lacking on enabling an integrated project design review process. 

We are being told (and have commercial values to back it up), that we are bringing considerable value to distributed engineering teams, but are continuing to improve this based upon a comprehensive user feedback mechanism.

We will never be able to please all users, but we believe we have solved a large piece of the integration / review requirement, not just for "BIM" teams, but also large infrastructure and process and power projects and owners also.  Again I ask if you saw the Shell presentation where we have sliced weeks of time from the concept selection process.

Thanks Dominic for your insight. 

As you may be aware we have a commercial offering called iTwin Design Review, which is aimed at removing the requirement to use "vendor" tools to review vendor specific "BIM" models.
ie reviewing a Revit building but also OpenRoads (or even Civil3D) in the same federated model.

Also in Oil & Gas a common format has been a holy grail for some time.

iTwin Design Review (which I am not sure I saw on your list) ... is an iModel.js solution which is part of an iTwin subscription is our commercial offering.  Yes you see some of that in the PCSG integration, but it is also part of our Asset Integration Management solution and you will see it being expanded across a lot of industry focused solutions.  You may have seen this also in the Hatch presentation where they "wrapped" the iTwin Design Review around their business workflow focused intranet.
iTwin Design Review is aimed at making design review and collaboration as simple as possible while removing the requirement for the user to have discreet knowledge of any design products,
A lot of the features are published on Youtube, but it is how our users are putting these features together to enable their workflows that is compelling. 

Sure the initial value is via the performance benefit in federating large models / pointclouds / reality mesh / gis layers and enabling larger project team members to review this, but when you start to consider spatial containment .. ie find me all of the bathrooms and ensure there is a WC / basin / shower in the room this becomes much more compelling

The ability to extend the application is also compelling and allows us to enable PAS1192-5 federation.  Again this should have been noticeable in the Safetibase presentation where a PAS1192-6  risk register is directly integrated with iTwin Design Review enabling immediate access to the risk register for project team members.

We are working hard on simplifying the integration to ProjectWise, but PAS1192 workflows means that there are many access points and ensuring only authorised users can access the correct models still requires some effort on the project digital engineers.  

However, we are starting to see design reviews being carried out using Teams, thus seeing a much more collaborative approach in these Covid times enabling a complete history of the IDR session, while also allowing the creation of actionable issues, integrated into the Issues Resolution.

Would be interesting to have your viewpoint on how iTwin Design Review and the wider CONNECT capabilities are lacking on enabling an integrated project design review process. 

We are being told (and have commercial values to back it up), that we are bringing considerable value to distributed engineering teams, but are continuing to improve this based upon a comprehensive user feedback mechanism.

We will never be able to please all users, but we believe we have solved a large piece of the integration / review requirement, not just for "BIM" teams, but also large infrastructure and process and power projects and owners also.  Again I ask if you saw the Shell presentation where we have sliced weeks of time from the concept selection process.

Glen Worrall said:

but we believe we have solved a large piece of the integration / review requirement, not just for "BIM" teams,

Yes, I completely agree. As mentioned, AFAIK, there is no other vendor out there that has the all the basic tech in place. The frustration is that all this does not seem to be integrated with the design tools... which typically only interface with ProjectWise or eB in a fairly rudimentary way, collaboration-wise.

Collaboration v Design: Twins can be an over-used term these days, but one advantage that Bentley has its large family of design apps which I think share a lot of the code components. For example, I suspect that clash detection code used on iTwins are probably based on the same code used on Mstn etc = twinned code... and workflows.

Clash is a good example of when 'twinning' between collaboration / analytical and design tools can be synergistic... and also illustrates the limitations of looking at collaboration / checking tools only.

Clash detection as a line-of-sight activity is great but what is more productive is clash avoidance.... which has to be done in the design app ie a cross app activity that needs collaboration platform support.

The devil is in the workflow details: I am not saying that clash detection on the iTwin / review side should be second fiddle, this not the case. There will always be a need for this. But, what would be great productivity boosters would be the means to make the bi-directional process a lot easier. They should be seen and rolled out as 'twinned' activities and functionality... in future?

For example:

1. When a reviewer makes a comment in iTwin and logs the comment BCF-style, and sends the comment or schedule on using IRS.. the design app user should be able to click on the Issue Resolution item and load up the corresponding models in Mstn etc for editing. User doesn't have to hunt around and re-attach the models in the iTwin etc. Probably already just about possible. 

2. Teams was mentioned: it would be great if you could do IRS-style snapshots (Win-Shift-S) in Teams and capture the camera position and model structure so that when some else clicks on the note in the Teams chat window, the user assigned to address the comment can jump straight into the right model and have the right context...

3. ... and store the set up when he is done so that he can return to it... by making his own Teams chat item? or store it into an email or even better Powerpoint?

4. There is a growing appreciation that providing the non-graphic info using a DT helps the design process. This was demonstrated using PlantSight recently. If you are designing a pipe, you will be quicker if you can query/extract the 'back story' (eg pipe material, size etc) from the DT... which leads me to think that supporting side-by-side Mstn : Browser (iTwin) workflows will be critical. Bentley needs to look at supporting smarter copy+paste and drag+drop operations between browser (iTwin) and editing (OpenX) app.

5. And soon... Nvidia's Omniverse will popularise real-time, multi-user workflows. The existing IRS workflow is woefully incomplete. Once the issue is passed on, the designers that need to solve the clash are often left tool-less, to rely on dumb redlined sketches, phone calls or etc. Comment: £ v Resolution: £££

What would be great is if the iTwin platform could provide a 'sandpit' extract of multiple models and provide some 'co-viewing' tools and controls for manipulating the design. Eg, clash in services riser: extract all disciplines (stored in separated dgns) into editing app OpenPlant ModelServer-style to allow one user to mod, and pass control to another on request. I remember this kind of multi-user command queue passing demonstrated at a BE conference... and subsequently relegated to LEARN as a training tool..?

Since iTwins stores the provenance info, it should also be possible to store different 'forks' or proposals... that can be reviewed with the approving parties. Current clash detection tool functionality is a bit misleading as it suggests that de-clashing is always a simple excercise with obvious answers.. no need to deal with multiple options.

6. Or... the manipulation would happen in the iTwin / browser, and synch'd back to the design app models... ConceptStation<>OpenRoads-style?

Bentley has a lot of the underlying tech... but where are the tools... at the cutting edge?

Glen Worrall said:

We are being told (and have commercial values to back it up), that we are bringing considerable value to distributed engineering teams, but are continuing to improve this based upon a comprehensive user feedback mechanism.

Following the money: Yea, I wish I knew the answer to this one. Seems like the probability that you are in the wrong poker game in town and are potentially leaving lots of cash on the table unknowingly is especially rampant in software these days.

Hopefully, iTwins won't be a bridge too far for Bentley where 'market' and 'garden' never joined up.

Interesting that it was the fleet-of-foot paras that bore the brunt of the losses :-(

Glen Worrall said:

Again I ask if you saw the Shell presentation where we have sliced weeks of time from the concept selection process.

Yes, I did see the section on Futureon. Looks like iTwins provides a supporting means to capture the asset information that will feed into their 'Generic Network Topology'. Lots of talk about and use of  metadata which is needed for FieldTwin to build their simulation model... which should be familiar territory for Bentley.

Impressive stuff. I especially like the node-based FEED inteface where you can use Lego-like components to layout a design. I can see PlantWise / Axsys benefiting from this kind of UI. iTwins could be leveraged to layer on scheduling data so that you can use Synchro in the mix to sift through your buildability options. Being a node network that has some dataflow plumbing built in I can see hooking up some structural optioneering using Bentley Scenario Services being quite doable.

Similarly, the earlier WaterSight presentation uses a separate analytical 'backend' with iTwins as a repository and reviewing platform. Ditto for TowerSight vis-a-vis OpenTower?

Sure... from a designer's perspective, I can see that iTwin's duplication / federation of asset data and topology info will be a useful way to off-load and run multiple 'design checks' in the cloud... thereby directly assisting the design process.

But, the challenge here is the extraction of 'meta data' embedded in those tools. Where are they? Market or Garden?

For example, let's take OpenBuildings Station Designer which has an analytical engine (Legion) for pedflow... that also has to build up its own 'network topology' using separate model builder and analysis interfaces.

Still, these analytical tools are backward looking and will still need a starting point or layout that is defined using a design / editing tool. Similar to FieldTwins asset nodes, you would need to build up a library of architectural objects with all the pedflow metadata built in and hook them up in network to run your simulation. I suppose Futureon's APIs would be the starting point here?

DTs as the arena for analytical and design activities.

In any case, the bulk of design tasks will not be so clear-cut or require big cloud compute resourcing. iTwins need to cater to them as well, especially since Bentley users seem to be shunned by the market when it comes to collaboration platforms. Quite a number of them are based on BIM360 or Forge etc.

Having said that, I can see transit authorities like the MTA in New York, London Underground etc building up iTwins of their stations and storing their pedflow models in addition to the usual BIM stuff. Whenever some alterations are needed, you whip out the model and work and simulate off a 'fork' of the iTwin... TowerSight-style which should speed things up design-wise. This is a good starting point that will 'float all boats' but there needs to be some attention given to the nitty-gritty usability details mentioned earlier.

dominic SEAH said:

DTs as the arena for analytical and design activities.

Futureon could be the seed for a Bentley-wide simulation platform.

Why should simulation be at the core for Digital Twins? One aspect of Digital Twins that distinguishes it from the old BIM-think is the idea of active models over static documents. All of the code looked at this year's Dev Con was really about extracting and visualising data from models that are either generated by designers or streamed from an existing asset.

Most infra jobs are based on the old systems engineering V-model, where documents are progressively defined and tested as they are realised. The next step -systems engineering-wise- would be to replace those static documents with dynamic models that are much more responsive, scalable and traceable.

In addition to managing and extracting static data from in iTwins, which may be updated every so often, but are still updated manually with their formative decision-making and verification processes hidden or 'dark', a MBSE approach would have the 'calculations' or design procedures defined and built in digitally (or at least machine-readable).

This ultimate goal here would be next-level verification and optimisation of the design.

Looking at the stuff showcased this year, we are still at Level 1... which I suppose is OK as the effort needed to define the simulation model is still pretty high and not always viable. Regardless, there will be low-hanging fruit, and interest. Apparently, transportation is 'catching up fast'!

I suppose that there could be some truth to this. Going back to the Station Designer example, a lot of the transportation modeling tools are already there and you could see transit clients like London's TfL already hooking up Aimsun, Streetlytics etc for road traffic to Railplan for rail traffic, Cynemon for cycle traffic and Legion for in station pedflow as part of their DT.  Who knows, Uber might step in and pay for it just to free up the roads for their drivers 

Glen Worrall said:

However, we are starting to see design reviews being carried out using Teams

Just saw this very interesting session on the use of Bots in Teams.

Glen Worrall said:

Would be interesting to have your viewpoint on how iTwin Design Review and the wider CONNECT capabilities are lacking on enabling an integrated project design review process. 

One thing to remember is that the review process goes hand-in-hand with the design process. In fact, we do not review for review's sake... but to make the design better... by making the design process better.

Looking at Teams as a platform or entry point for this, I am struck by the big shifts underway with web-based working. Underneath Teams there is MS' Graph API... which is the means to manage access to all that info in Office 365 etc... starting with the 'life cycle' of any task.. Teams-enabled or not.

This is an expansion of the old PC client app: files on a server topology... with a lot more granularity.

Two-monitor working is consequence of the increased need to receive task info (via email, messenger etc), monitor/track, search for, check (more reading, measuring, overlaying), extract (copy+paste text, urls + pics etc), query (email, messenger, phone etc) visualise/translate/transform (Feature Overides, Markers etc)... all before you actually do any 'real' work on your primary monitor using your core design or analysis app. At least 30% of your time even for frontline staff?

Teams, Graph and itwins.js all seem to be built up to deal with this new more inclusive way of accessing and working with info. I suppose ProjectWise is also moving in this direction with PW 365 and PW Drive. Accessing dgn / i.dgn files on Sharepoint was demo'd in the link above. It would be great if the same can happen with files hosted on PW.

What would be the payback?

1. One problem with big complex infra jobs, despite all the big declarations of BIM maturity, documented procedures, co-location etc etc is that it is still very difficult to force the different players to work in lock-step. From small line-item meeting actions to whole package work-ups and delivery... the amount of deferred or out-of-sync work makes up a huge rolling 'technical debt' that builds up and diverts a huge amount of retro-active effort ie 'design review'. Doesn't matter how great the design review apps are it is still an inherently inefficient '1970s Detroit lemon-spotting vs Japanese Quality Circles' game.

A lot of design decisions are made as 'projections' that need to be verified by calculation later. Even simple choices by the participants need to be signed off by others later etc.

Easy to see how Teams can help by automatically documenting the design meetings. A task or comment in the Teams chat can be returned to by the MEP or structural engineer at any time and the response added. The info can also be monitored so that the powers-that-be can gauge progress and pull strings before next meeting etc.

MS Bots API seems to have all the low or no-code tools to allow the user-side customisation of the Teams sessions. I can see a lot of users using this as 'pre-flight' checklists... that can be collated as corporate memory and instructions for junior staff on the next job / meeting. We already use a running / reocurring Teams chat thread to communicate within the team. I can see personalised versions of this by the individual team members on a per task basis: basic modeling, annotation, drawing sheet set up, spec writing, clash detection etc.

2. By documenting the process, critically important tasks like time-tracking for billing and future budgeting for bid purposes would also benefit enormously. MS is already providing 'spy-ware' telemetry and analytics for employers worried about WFH. Might as well mine and use that info.

For consultants, the main commercial basis for large infra jobs is still essentially 'selling time' regardless of the type of contract.

3. As mentioned, most infra jobs subscribe to the V-model concept where the design is progressively tested as it is developed. The problem is that much of this 'testing' is very limited in nature and really amounts to the reviewer asking the designer to 'demonstrate' compliance. Something that can get quite subjective... often swept under the carpet into the 'too difficult' or 'eyes on the prize' tray.

I can see using something like Teams to document the design process and the reference material (using Connectors?) used would be a help.

Some clients are already publishing their tests before hand to ensure that the designers actually test particular issues before hand to speed up the acceptance process.

4. ??