BIM: The Hype, The Reality and Managing Expectations

[Link]

As a continuation from the conversation started here I would like to pick people's brains about the reality of BIM, as it stands right now at the beginning of 2009.

As we know only too well, many software packages work in theory, or only deliver about 80% of what they promise, of what is really needed to complete the job, so is BIM similarly fraught with shortcomings and workarounds?

And with such a huge offering of BIM products, covering so many disciplines and even non-disciplne specific functions, how does one even start to choose the application(s) they'll need?

I hope experienced BIM users and people who have researched BIM so far, (eg. Laura, Matthew, Tom, Aaron, Stefan, etc) are willing to contribute their experiences and knowledge to this discussion. Of course anyone is welcome to comment and any relevant external references would also be welcome!

Cheers,
Link.

[Laura Yanoviak]

One myth:
The single integrated BIM model. I quote and paraphrase from the "BIM Manual": "Currently, BIM design environments are typically good for one or two-discipline integration. The integration of construction-level detail is more difficult, and model review tools are the best solution to achieve this." Because coordination does not apply universally... it is still an open question as to whether there is a need for a single integrated database.

And concerning blobitecture:
"It is important to note that such experimental architecture generally requires specialized tools and configurations." As an example, the design of the Al Hamra Firdous Tower by SOM was "managed using Visual Basic scripts; Digital Project was the design platform... freeform shapes in architecture can be accomplished by defining the external shell digitally and... outline the fabrication of pieces... using computer numerical control (CNC) machinery." Also, IFC currently does not recognize shapes constructed of multi-curved surfaces, such as B-splines and NURBS. In other words, it currently requires extreme measures to create blobs.

And in summary:
"The full potential of this enabling capability [BIM] will not be fully known for at least a decade."

[Anonymous]

Well, first the definition of BIM

[Richard Morrison]

I think you should add Rusty Fuqua's contributions. (e.g. http://timeless-builder.com/Accountability.pdf) He has been using (one version) of BIM for years, but it is one that depends on a very high level of competence in using the software.

I think that a large reason that BIM is not more widespread is that it demands not only a very high level of competency in using the software, but a huge level of attention and dedication to the model itself. Probably more competency than most architects and their junior staff are willing (or able) to acquire and/or more detail than they are willing to invest in their drawings.

This may be one reason that contractors, who have money of their own riding on the results, have more incentive to create a useful BIM model than architects. Architects are usually looking for the most expeditious way to get the drawings "out the door," which does not mesh well with the needs of BIM.

[Link]

Thanks for your replies. I have realized that this may be a sensitive topic that some people may not want to comment on, so as not to publicly attest to BIM's shortcomings.

Despite all the doubts, I am encouraged by articles such as the 'Sutter Medical Center Castro Valley: Case Study of an IPD Project' at aecbytes that shows successful, real-world use of BIM as part of IPD (Integrated Project Delivery), and of special interest to me, includes utlizing the process of Value Stream Mapping.

So BIM can be successfully implemented. Now it's just a matter of learning how, and experience will no doubt be the best teacher. I'm really looking forward to exploring it further.

Cheers,
Link.

[Anonymous]

Richard wrote:
Architects are usually looking for the most expeditious way to get the drawings "out the door," which does not mesh well with the needs of BIM.

You've hit the nail on the head (or at least one of them). Architects have quite enough on their plate just sorting out the design of the building. A constructability/coordination model is quite something else.

BIM is a tremendously complex set of intertwining requirements and issues that is not going to resolved by any single solution. I think too much focus is put on interoperability. As if it is just a technical problem of getting software and file formats coordinated. I think the solution can only come from more cooperability. What we do is very complex and complicated and it's going to take all kinds of tools in all kinds of hands working together to get the job done.

[Anonymous]

Link wrote:
So BIM can be successfully implemented.

Of course it can. I'm doing it every day. (Though I try to take weekends off as much as possible 😉 )

[Da3dalus]

I find it kind of funny that many of us old ArchiCADers (as well as our fellow MicroStationers, Reviters, VectorWorksers, and even ADTers) have been creating pretty smart "virtual building" models for the last 15 years, but all of a sudden, nothing seems to live up to expectations. We were pretty happy with the results of our less-capable software before, but now that it does more, and strives to be "True" BIM, we're throwing it off the bridge for it's ineptitudes.

It seems that the only thing that has changed is the perception, not the reality. The recent outburst of BIM debates of the past few years has created new artificial expectations based on a paradigm of theoretical capabilities and wishes for the future. Somehow, simple reviews of actual design products have become fused with discussions of the grand purpose of all design technology, though these forums should clearly be kept separate. The construction industry has become so caught up in what it could be, that it's lost sight of its current assets. We've ceased to see the forest for the trees.

We can still design, visualize, and document buildings better than ever before. The tools improve each year, and provide new opportunities. We have been sharing information for years, and getting projects done. However, we seem obsessed by interoperability, integrated project delivery, model integrity, NURBS modeling, clash detection, rapid prototyping, CNC fabrication, and code, structure, systems, and energy analysis. In this new light, our software is worthless because it can't address these things easily or effectively.

In a baffling reversal of logic, firms are reverting to AutoCAD (or similar Computer-Aided Drafting), after they had already implemented a modeling design platform. I believe the conflicting discourse has frightened firm managers, who are not down in the trenches, into believing that their BIM products are a failure. Without clear feedback from their staff, the media's frenzy of dissecting the challenges and problems of BIM implementation has created a sense of impending crisis, forcing business-minded decision makers to roll up in a ball and go back to what they know. There was never a problem until we started calling our yardstick "BIM", and measuring everything by it.

It is critical that we, as pundits of this industry, be vigilant of our rhetoric to avoid confusing and intertwining these disparate issues. Choose to either A) focus on talking about our real day-to-day issues and how to solve them (perhaps with expectations of the next version or some cool new feature), or B) start a new thread about where we're headed, always in future tense. Feel free to dream of sci-fi solutions where we can mold our very thoughts into a revolving holographic mega-model that automatically writes specifications, eliminates conflicts, complies with codes, and commissions itself to optimal energy efficiency and sustainability standards; but please do not criticize the industry or its tools based on this criteria. We are, after all, still tied inextricably to the bricks-and-mortar world that we create. Evolution will happen in its own time.

[Rob]

Chuck I completely agree.
I have actually realised that when I was talking to my friend who is still on AC10. He is perfectly happy with the workflow and results he can get and he is not planning to upgrade.
I think it is just a hype that has been created by us and media I suppose. However I must say that the building industry is one of the most rigid and conservative industries in terms of implementing new technologies and workflows so there is an obvious frustration that leads to hyperboles in our statements sometimes.

[Geoff Briggs]

When the title of the topic is “BIM: The Hype, The Reality and Managing Expectations“ then I think it is entirely appropriate to talk about our long term dreams as well as our immediate pain points.

Long term I see BIM being based on cloud located model servers operated on a software as service basis with modular thin clients contributing and extracting the data they are designed to manipulate, all with well optimized synchronizing technology. It will be fast, efficient, affordable and infinitely scalable.

This is not brain-connected holography. It could be done today if someone married the right technology with the right business plan.

Short term, how about a way to add leading and trailing text to dimensions! (This can be done by all the other software listed by Chuck.) Just one example (of many) of my continuing frustration that as we enjoy all these wonderful new features through the years simple things that would make a huge day-to-day impact are neglected. BIM is after all about information connected to simulated building systems. It’s a case of can’t see the trees for the forest.