I enclose an extract from a fellow CIOB member and myself discussing Building information modeling (BIM) – defined as a process involving the generation and management of digital representations of both physical and functional characteristics of a facility. The resulting building information models become shared knowledge resources to support decision-making about a facility from earliest conceptual stages, through design and construction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction> , to its operational life and eventual demolition***
This is the latest “big idea” in the industry like all others has its uses but I fear it will be a good idea runied by the usual suspects – see below or try http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-pmt-cn&gid=109490&view=&ut=3vT5LoIIg7zBk1&srchtype=discussedNews&item=135470796&type=member for more on the discussion.
*** Wikipedia (2012), Building Information Modelling, available from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_information_modeling(accessed 23rd July 2012).
LDC
<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=109490&memberID=48368123
The BIM evolution is with us but who is going to deal with the cultural, behavioural changes required within the industry and can this be left to the construction sector and the professionals within? If this is more about process, should a business person rather than a construction professional, architect, QS, engineer, construction lawyer or other, be in charge of driving this innovation/change through the industry? Perhaps Change Management professionals should attempt to take on the BIM and UK construction industry challenge? Change is needed if we are to see collaborative BIM use but who is going to lead that change process? Can the construction industry deliver the changes required, does it want to? Any positive suggestions, solutions answers out there?
Karl Redmond
BIM sounds a reasonable tool for architects and engineers to use whilst in the pre-construction phase of a project to work along side the builder likely to construct the project. An epoch and heralding a new era in construction it isn’t. Busy bodies and fee grubbbers like change management professionals should stay way and cause yet more havoc in the NHS as per usual. There are enough professionals who barely deserve their fees in construction already from the QSs now called project managers, all planning supervisors or whatever they’re called, trainers and H&S quacks, TQM/ISO9000 or good old BS5750 box tickers-remember that fad-it was meant to be a change changing moment- right back to town planners who created themselves after the Town and Country Planning Act 1975.
Decent education with applied common sense from parents to schools to training colleges or universities for apprentices or graduates will imbue an industry with people who are capable and adaptable to new technologies.
BIM should help designers to envisage complex structures and not be an excuse to feed never ending unaccountable quack professions charging fees whist making the client or builder carry their costs and very limited effect.
Don’t ruin BIM.
Little Deal Clincher
Hi LDC- a man not sitting on the fence. BIM should be a ‘reasonable tool’ for many groups within the industry and I agree ‘a decent education with applied common sense’ will develop ‘people who are capable and adaptable’ to new innovations. I think most of those looking at the BIM agenda want it to work, not ruin it, especially if it helps the industry as a whole and nobody wants to see additional costs or ‘busy bodies and fee grubbers’ taking advantage. What I would like is someone to take a lead regarding this agenda and be recognised as decent, educated and with some common sense by all other groups. Unfortunately all I see are people viewing this as some kind of race (who can control BIM first and steal ground on the others) or they see it as some kind of fad that will disappear if enough people moan and refuse to collaborate which is usually based on a lack of understanding. As a ‘not for profit’ group attempting to support the construction industry (especially SME’s) the CSN are not bothered who takes the lead (one or more groups) as long as they deal with all involved equally, understand the pressures people are under and give them a chance educate themselves if they want to get involved with the BIM agenda. I do think a lead (or leaders) should come from within the industry what I’m not sure about, is who that should be! Should it be different each time based the project and the expertise within that specific project group? Should it be the client? Whoever the lead is they will have to deal with people and the construction industry is not seen as the best example of open & collaborative working which BIM could help promote or is this wrong?
Karl Redmond
Hi Karl and thank you for the reply- unfortunately it will be bagged and ruined by the fee grubbers just like TQM was and even health and safety. It’s a good tool for pre-construction design and it will be used by the wrong people looking for an angle to pinch gullible clients money and unsuspecting contractors. For example CDM regs should have been “tucked under the arm of existing” practises with H&S but look what happened there- desperate architects and surveyors leapt upon it- APS indeed. I was on a contracts and legal committee for the SBEF for years and saw 1st hand in applications to be adjudicators how people sieze upon any new regulations to grab some fees- it was anyone but actual contractors writing to the contractors body in Scotland to be admitted to our list. It will happen again with BIM- “gimmicked by the grubbers”
Little Deal Clincher