My conclusion is that his analysis from 2016 remains relevant to this day. I would like to take you through how I arrived at this conclusion by reviewing the key elements.
If a standard is only useful within the context of an academic thought exercise and is not applicable by the individuals who are required to utilise it, it is doomed to fail.
The academic development is an important step that must ensure the future orientation of the methodology. Due to evolving insights, technical possibilities, and the generic application across all possible installations, there is a risk that the fundamental rules may become too general and vague. Especially when they must take into account other existing standards.
For the sake of convenience, I also consider a building as an installation.
The BIM methodology is based on a rationally structured mathematical framework that provides a context for human utilisation. It can be perceived as controlling, restrictive, and condescending. While the intention is precisely to establish trust among the various partners in the construction process.
- The economic and commercial factor:
The complete transparency that pure BIM can provide is not always desirable from the economic and commercial approach of a project (interpersonal relationships).
- The compatibility factor:
The various partners place different emphases and priorities within the BIM process. Each individual attempts to position their methodology as authoritative, driven by their own profit motives. This is perfectly understandable; however, from the perspective of the BIM process, it is counterproductive.
It is beyond doubt that everyone must be able to retrieve the information they need. This must be ensured within the process.
- The factor of impact/control:
Each involved partner endeavours to maximise their own return from an economic/commercial perspective by aligning the process as closely as possible with their own familiar procedures.
Whether it concerns a user (architect, engineering firm, contractor, facility manager), manufacturer, partner (developer, software supplier), or end user, everyone is striving to leverage the current developments to maximise their impact and control over the process.
While it is in the best interest of everyone that the entire project progresses smoothly and not just their individual part.
As an engineer / designer, I wish to have a practical standard today that will enable me to design effectively.
What does this entail?
That there is a standard
-
- as a tool to support my design approach;
- which allows me to deliver a coherent result using the available digital tools – calculations and drawing (modelling);
- which makes my delivered/the deliverable results clear and directly usable as a solid foundation for the partners;
- that protects my design and profits.
