BIM... what!?
What happens if we turn the world of construction into a social network like Twitter? #BIM would surely be a trend topic. But let's face it: What really is BIM? You can find a lot of false myths about it and some of them need to be quashed, once and for all. This is what I’m going to achieve with this article. But let’s start with the basics.
The following definition, given by ISO 19650, shall be axiomatic: The word BIM, acronym of Building Information Modeling, indicates the «use of a shared digital representation of a built asset [1] to facilitate design, construction and operation processes to form a reliable basis for decisions»[2]. In other words, “BIM” indicate the critical act whereby a building process operator builds and/or uses the Information Model [3] as a decision-making tool to optimize the building process from the planning to the management of the asset until its demolition.
First myth to debunk: BIM is not a software (the most common blunder).
Second myth to debunk: BIM is not a new method, if we mean the word “method” in its scientific sense (e.g. scientific method). BIM, on the other hand, is a new method if we mean the word “method” as a procedure, a technique or a way of doing something. This seemingly trivial distinction is fundamental. The origin of this misunderstanding could probably be sought both in the different meaning of word method and in the erroneous interpretation of the below image (used at the beginning of every explanation about BIM).
The first image on the left represents the exchange of data and communications between the actors of a building process in the era of CAD design. When they communicate with each other (Please note: each actor not communicates with all the other ones) they do it chaotically. In the image on the right, BIM is inserted in the middle of the same actors, but now every actor speaks with all the other ones, the information moves in a certain and reliable way thanks to BIM. If so, what were your finding? BIM is a new method (scientific meaning) that connects all the figures of the building process, involving them in all the phases of the work and making the flow of information clear. This is all Wrong! According to the fact that BIM is not a method (scientific meaning), we can state that:
It is not a methodological norm that recommends, if you are an architect for example, to have a dialogue with all the other actors, this was already done in the CAD era, regardless of BIM. BIM is not the tinder for the construction world. BIM is just a facilitator of these interactions.
It is not a directive that stipulates that the construction company must to participate from the design stage of a work, it should already be so.
It is not a convention that requires the clear transmission of project data within the building process, it had already to be done, the lack of a federator tool (like an Information Model) in the CAD era didn’t make lawful falsifying and altering the exchange data.
BIM, on the other hand, is a new and more efficient way for managing the building process, using the information model as a unique tool for dialogue between the parties. From this new method (way of doing something) a new method (set of standards) could and/or should be born. According to the understanding of what the Information Model might do, we have to make some adjustments in the current methodological standardization: renewing, implementing and upsetting it. In order to do this, it is plausibly necessary to be ready to abandon many of the current modus operandi of the building discipline, based on other tools such as CAD, that works in a manner clearly differently from the Information Model.
The attempt to continue using the information model in a romantic/historicist way, it’s not BIM. This approach is counterproductive so much so as continuing to use the CAD workflow. It’s like buying an electric car and pretending to refuel at petrol station.
Cover background is designed by pch.vector / Freepik
[1] Standard ISO 19650-1:2018, p. 3, 3.2.8.
[2] Standard ISO 19650-1:2018, p. 5, 3.3.14.
[3] Standard ISO 19650-1:2018, p. 4, 3.3.8.