Friday, February 19, 2016
My friend, DjG shared a promo on FB a couple of days ago (link at the bottom of this post) that made me stop and read it with interest.
Now this is my kind of a phone!
Interesting self-revelation, as everyone knows I’m not much into gadgets, the length I hang onto my old dumb Nokia is probably only rivalled by my dear friends in India. Currently I’m nursing a 3 year old Blackberry, hoping to last the year out without having to learn to get by with a newer version of it.
What tickled my fancy was not the list of unique features this device offered but the fact that it was mothered by Caterpillar and is looking ‘construction cool’.
In spite of the huge amount of money sloshing within the construction field globally, it is not a ‘cool career choice’ and consequently not the ‘sharpest’ of industries. The higher one goes up the food-chain of it, the thinner the ‘air’ gets – as my personal encounters with many heavy hitters of the industry over the last 2 decades have proven.
The whole ‘BIM thing’ has been trying to change this trend, entice the elite of the young thinkers, the cream of the technology developers and together shake the industry through innovation into a new, cool force to reckon with.
Unfortunately, this ‘BIM thing’ has been anything but successful. After good 2 decades of momentous efforts and moneys spent, the industry still is a boring old slog-for daily survival for the most working in it and an easy dirty road to the riches for a very small minority manipulating within it.
Over the years I have written a lot, on why the currently available (and often mandated) mainstream BIM is doomed to fail and will not repeat myself again. I will pull out one factor though to illustrate the hope a possible alternative might show:
The extremely low percentage of hands-on involvement on any working BIM measured across the project (or company claiming to be BIM enabled);
Simply saying – on a ‘BIM project’ how high a percentage of the people involved can claim to be able to make ‘real, hands-on’ use of the employed BIM approach?
10%, 20%, 90%?
The emphasis is on the ‘real’. Not forced, not pretended, not indirect, not….
Like, ‘it is part of my work and I can handle it by myself and it is a meaningful tool for me’.
I am pretty confident, that even the biggest of biggest of BIMmest of projects currently have a percentage in low single figures, especially if you bring in the construction end of those building.
That could be changed with a 4-step process:
Make the project truly paper free, make Caterpillar phones the official phones of the project, put Adobe into charge of all the data outputs (2D, 3D, 4D…) and link everything to a central model built by and on ArchiCAD.
Not only will this model grow into a global industry success, it would make it cool for young and old too!
Monday, November 30, 2015
Had dinner with my HR friend recently. Things aren’t looking that great in the AEC industry at the moment, globally and here. She is considering going back to the UK and catch a bit more of the BIM-Bonanza that still seems to be going on there.
She knows nothing about BIM, but has been successfully recruiting BIMmers for years.
She knows, that I know, that she knows nothing about BIM.
This has no negative impact on our friendship. In fact, she still tries to tempt me with the occasional BIM role in the region.
She knows BIM is Revit around here, she knows I do not do Revit.
In fact it was her that once flattered me with, ‘Making you work on Revit would be like asking a piano maestro to play daily on a child’s toy keyboard’.
Revit aside, we do talk agreeable about BIM and its present and future prospects, here-there-everywhere. We keep a brave face to it but neither of us is quite able to be truly optimistic about it.
See, there is a major problem with BIM, that its ‘host’ industry is Construction.
BIM as an approach supposedly developed to improve (let alone, the well favored ‘revolutionize’) the industry, can do little to an industry that is so ‘binary’ in its nature.
Simply said, it has two modes, off or on. When it is on, things go well, there is lot of work in construction and everyone is making money and not giving a toss to how that money is made (sustainably, efficiently, logically, ethically….).
When the switch is turned off, everyone panics and is regrouping, strategizing and self-preserving but hardly investing into long, tedious, expensive processes of developing working BIM solutions.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
The long overdue third instalment of my ‘The role of PDFs in BIM’ trilogy
Let me start with a long-winded explanation on, how this post is not supposed to be an argument based on the question of ‘why would one want to import one (or hundreds) of PDF file(s) into any working BIM model?’.
There are two reasons for me wanting to avoid this argument, one being that, those in the know will fall neatly on either side of the argument, strongly believing that to be totally unnecessary or an essential capability of the BIM toolset they use. And no amount of questioning their stance will likely to move them from it.
The second reason is that, I do have a lot of dear friends and colleagues that are avid Revit users who will feel somewhat personally attacked by the notion that this question could be the absolute key issue of almost anything BIM – considering their beloved toolset’s inability to deal with it. There is little point in undermining those personal relationships of mine and to reinforce my goodwill and intentions it I’ll admit to the Great Truth of BIM, again, and again –
‘Autodesk rules the BIM world. Revit is the King of BIM!’.
Now, can I get on with exploring PDFs in BIM models?
Through my work I build BIM models from other people’s designs, either during the official design process, following it as part of preparing construction tenders, parallel to building the real thing or even post construction for settling residual claims between parties.
I am a hands-on modeller and my speed, accuracy and ability to deduct useful information based on the model is highly reliant on how I can make use of the hundreds and thousands of PDF documents that are available for the stage/project I am working on.
These PDF’s, needless to say are always prepared by others and never with the view to make my life easier, so even before they get into the model, they must be scrutinised, analysed, weeded-out and ordered.
Once that is done I usually end up with still a large number of files wanted to be imported and while it is a tedious process, I like it as it helps me get to know the project.
ArchiCAD is my tool of choice and I really enjoy how it handles PDF’s within its BIM models.
Here are 10 of the features I can list from the top of my head:
(yes I know…why would you want to bring in a PDF, when a DWG will do and it slows down the file and makes it unusable and…. – let’s just for a minute accept, I LIKE bringing PDF’s in my models and just for a minute, let’s savour these little clever tools);
1. ArchiCAD imports PDF’s as Drawings (as opposed to images)
2. While importing one can choose on the fly any page from a hundred (thousand) page document.
3. Once imported the file can be resized, or shaped any way one likes (i.e. creating nods and curving edges and offsetting and whatnot)
4. Literally hundreds of sheets can be imported and kept linked up with no noticeable impact on file-speed and/or agility.
5. ArchiCAD allows one to use the Trace&Reference with PDF’s the same way as with any other drawing element.
6. One can ghost a plan behind a section (real or PDF-ed) or a detail in-front a relevant section.
7. One can use colours on the PDF’s
8. And/or make them transparent (at varying degrees);
9. One can slide between the ghosted views and the views can be moved within references without physically relocating.
10. The files stay linked and it is very easy to update even when moving between various media (like memory sticks).
I am sure there are other neat little features that ArchiCAD has for dealing with PDFs that I am missing here, but I really wanted to concentrate on the ones that I use daily.
I sometimes question myself, if I HAD to work on a BIM model and not have these features available would I get by?
I sure would – but man, would I hate it too.
I guess also that I would only hate it because I have had the experience to model ‘with the features available at hand’ – otherwise, one does not miss what one does not know.
So, to sum it up – this post is to state, that like it or not, PDFs are and will be for a long time part and parcel of any BIM related activity (trust me, I work in the real AEC).
And sure, Revit is still the King.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
I’ve been troubled by a massive BIMmer’s-block for a while.
The equivalent of what is known as the Writer's block, a condition, primarily associated with writing, in which an author loses the ability to produce new work or experiences a creative slowdown. The BIMmer’s block is a condition that similarly ranges in difficulty from coming up with original BIM ideas to being unable to produce any BIM-related work for years.
My symptoms experienced have been varying from mild disinterest to engage in BIM related topics to argumentatively aggressive outburst against good natured BIM promoters.
A heavy cloak of BIM-apathy has permanently set up camp on my shoulders and I’ve been carrying a murky bubble of antagonistic anti BIM-energy everywhere I go, ready to suck in the unaware.
Signs have been there for a while, that I was likely to hit some sort of a BIM-bottom.
That, after 2 decades of meager success achieved at very high personal-price paid, my enthusiasm and willingness to fight for yet-another BIM related pie-in the sky scheme will run out, was somewhat inevitable.
Some people concerned with my wellbeing seeing my difficulties have been trying to get me back into a positive BIM-shape.
They share with me, what they perceive to be signs of things changing for the better.
The mandating of BIM by various clients, governments, countries. The rise in demand for well-skilled BIM modelers. The improvements felt in overall industry BIM literacy. The financial success of various BIM-related vendors.
I remain unconvinced.
Not only for my deeply set-in cynicism but because what I see out in the ‘real world’.
In my self- forced retirement from BIM evangelism, I make my living in a fairly pedestrian AEC role. One company I engage with regularly claims to be at the forefront of BIM (just as most companies I come across do, interestingly enough).
Regularly, high level managers of this ‘top shelf engineering company’ ensure me (and the world) that they use BIM on everything they do.
Yet, daily I fight my battle with the staff of the same company grumbling about the work necessary to update the ‘date and revision’ of (admittedly and unnecessarily) large number of drawings on the project we share and lament about the time needed to create PDF files from their DWGs.
One might say, these two things, a supposedly very advanced BIM capability and a manual, drawing-date editing system can live side by side in a perfect harmony and within one company.
In line with the ‘horses for courses’ analogy. Or due to the company undergoing an evolutionary process of gradual improvement that caters for various extremes.
I remain unconvinced.
It is like saying, we use super-duper fast vehicles on all our projects, except on yours, there we carry things on foot at large distances, by choice. Or because you did not want to pay for the mark-up that was supposedly a cheaper-faster more efficient way of doing things.
During my 2 decades of swimming upstream in this BIM-resistant, AEC industry river, I floated numerous ideas that never become real – realities.
An online consenting system for building permits, a construction-site located central information pod, the picture book documenting concept, the forensic BIM support for claims and generally risk management, the model of the paper free construction… just to name some of the numerous incarnations of innovative BIM use I promoted.
Having given up on most of those – time to set up the ‘Hit by the BIM-block club?
A scary thought.
Friday, August 28, 2015
I have a lot of respect for the trade-workers within the AEC industry.
Regardless of whether they are one-man-bands or work for large corporations, they are the ones at the coalfaces of projects, make things happen where the rubber hits the road.
Even though it is ‘well known’ in western societies that their rates are unreasonably high and workmanship mostly shoddy (heard a ‘plumber nightmare story’ recently?) their chargeable hours carry the burden of much more than what it would be reasonably expected to go for overheads.
The small operators lug the costs of working in a volatile industry, expensive tools, taxes and regulations, uneven cash-flow, bad weather. The ones employed by large corporations are burdened by disproportionally large armies of managers with often disproportionally large income expectations.
They do come in all shapes and sizes, of course. Some are better than others, the ‘cowboys’ of the industry often outnumber the ones that just try to make a decent living. Some are innovators, others are not, some are in it for the long haul and others are not.
There is no escape from the fact that there are the foundations of a pretty wobbly industry.
But if they thought en masse, things can’t get much more overwhelming, from what they need to be dealing with daily anyway, they were wrong, of course.
As the lukewarm BIM initiatives of the world are failing to impress with results of their efforts, the BIM spotlights get more and more onto the supply chain.
Many of them may have thought for years, that by occupying the bottom of the food-chain of the AEC they’d be off the hook for a while from needing to fully embrace this ‘BIM-thing’ – after all a painter is a painter, a sparky, a sparky – if they’d wanted to go into IT, they’d probably have chosen a different career path.
The global initiative of BIM has had a checkered history, having been around for a quarter of a century (I know, the term did not exist then, just the approach) – it has never really gotten a foothold within its host, the global AEC.
A good idea, an enthusiastic minority and relentless missionary activities of those, had little chances to succeed over the speculative – mafia type industry. Rather than accepting failure, and looking for new magic to save the industry, we keep on seeing new BIM activist emerge, paddling the same old scheme of the ‘good idea, enthusiastic minority and relentless missionary activities’, yet still can’t make the failed recipe work.
But new generations of would be AEC-revolutionaries and various government mandating helps the flame stay alive.
And there is now another boost to the campaign: blame the subbies for it not working. (they are too busy making buildings to question the claim for a while anyway)
Or putting it more politically correctly:
“But if we want to get through to a Level 3 BIM, we’ve got to take the whole supply chain with us and at the moment I don’t feel from the feedback I get that we’re doing that very well as an industry.” (ref 1)
The important message of the quoted sentence for me is it implying that ‘we’ have already reached Level 2 BIM (whatever that means) as an industry and for ‘us’ to get to Level 3 BIM those subbies must pull their weight too.
Sure, the same article calls onto the BIG guys to help:
“I think that a lot of the framework was paid for and promoted heavily by the Government. They took the lead which was a brave and right decision. I can’t see it at the minute – and I’m no expert, don’t get me wrong – but I can’t see the same level of commitment and investment coming from the Government, coming down to the supply chain. It’s so fragmented and varied in so many different ways. It’s a difficult way of being able to figure out how to reach out to them – i appreciate that.
That’s where the major contractors have to have such strong relationships, that they’ll say “we’ve educated our own staff, we’ve invested in the technology, worked out the processes, gone through Level 2, started to work out what we’re doing, but have to bite the bullet, sit down with the subcontractors and educate them, nurture them because otherwise they won’t understand, and when it comes to us demanding information and data, the shutters will go back up again.” ” (ref 1)
I have a suggestion:
How about leading by real example? For a start, reformat the goals of Government BIM Mandates to leave the subbies out from anything ‘compulsory’.
Focus on and prove the existence of a genuine, working, Level 2 BIM, led and performed by the Engineers (and other AEC Consultants) and Main Contractors of the world.
Picture from here:
Refs from here:
Friday, August 14, 2015
Paper-free Construction – A Catalyzing Epidemic by Design, that will invigorate the stale, global AEC industry
I like to claim to have been working with BIM for over 20 years.
Together with many other BIM enthusiasts, we’ve been trying to fix the AEC industry for decades now, by adding various amounts of BIM magic to it. The results are still pretty dubious. ‘The jury is still out’ on how well BIM has been doing, and even if the proverbial jury was not out – I’m definitely not convinced that it is making a noticeable dent on the performance of the global industry.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of BIM. It is just no longer the solution to the ‘problem’.
Once it may have been, 20 or so years ago – but when the conditions were right, it did not really caught on – and now it is too late. The cost and effort needed to make it work on any level is prohibited for most, within a dippy industry that does not value long-term investments into tools and approaches.
A bit like trying to force the entire financial sector speak fluent Latin in order for the Share market to become more honest, transparent and productive.
It is time to look at our options to rejuvenate this industry in a different way?
Wise people sometimes say, the solution to a problem could as easily be in taking something away as adding-on something else.
An over-salted soup may be made palatable by the additions of herbs, spices or certain vegetables, but reducing the salt in the first place could be an even more elegant solution.
Like, with fixing up an unpalatable soup once it is already spoilt, we’ve been forcing BIM onto the AEC like an unwelcome additive, expensive and feeble, still hoping that it’ll restore the murky stew.
Even though construction projects tend to take longer to create than any average soup, there is still plenty of opportunity in starting anew with an improved, less salty recipe.
Is there something obvious in the industry’s processes that could be taken away without damaging the host and assisting its healing?
The paper, for example?
The concept is simple: Create paperless environments within the industry, enforce them and gradually increase to cover larger and larger areas until they reach a critical cover, of no return.
There are a number of rules for the creation and operation that must be followed for these paper-less environs to function successfully, these I’ll omit in this writ- up, to keep the focus on the knock-on effects, should this approach become the norm.
Unlike with BIM, where the results are mostly measured in what they do to individual projects they’ve been applied to (saved money, saved time, found xxxxx million clashes) – the success of the Paper-free Construction Approach will be measured in the number of people affected by it and what they’ll do once infected.
Since, unlike BIM where even on huge BIM projects (like airports and Malls) most project participants manage to avoid full (or indeed almost any) immersion in the approach and at best become supportive bystanders, in PFCA projects everyone on the project becomes truly paper-free too.
These paper-free thinking and working people, once at peace with the approach will demand and incite developments of meaningful digital tools, in turn raising the ‘coolness factor’ of the industry by a couple of notches.
There will be the symptom called ‘Touched by PFCA’ – applied to those that had delivered a project in a paper-free way, no matter if as a consultant, a construction worker or a client representative.
In contrast to BIM campaigns, where somebody touched by BIM, may talk enthusiastically about their experiences (or not), someone that had survived and thrived in a Paper-free project will pass on the ‘disease’ with a lot of passion.
A newly ‘cool’ industry will attract more paper-free thinking/working people, that will then stimulate its growth even further.
The catalyst of the paper-free environment will in fact sweep over the industry like a ‘good’ epidemic.
Ironically, a new generation of a (more successful) BIM will be the natural progression from a Paper-Free craze.
Image from here:
Monday, August 3, 2015
Analysts interested in the wellbeing of economies related to the AEC industry are usually at pains to explain, how it is by its nature cyclical, consequently the fortunes of those working within construction will go up and down in regular intervals.
Sometimes the lows get a bit too low for everyone’s liking and the word ‘crash’ appears on the said analysts’ reports, as well as in the daily lives of those too dependent on the health of the industry.
As someone that had weathered one or two of those storms in my professional lifetime, where some blizzards I escaped only by a narrow margin, as well being a (so called) BIM enthusiast – I take a special interest in observing how well various BIM initiatives do, when the dial of the industry heads South, as it seems to be doing now, again.
My sad conclusion is, that BIM does not do very well when its umbrella industry hits turbulent times.
I see that, when things slow down and developments ground to an almost halt – there are usually very few project-owners that will carry on insisting on ‘adding cost’ onto their overstretched budgets by enforcing any type of BIM requirement .
Government clients, often the most vocal BIM mandators in good times, will also retreat hastily from anything BIM.
Never mind, that BIM is supposed to save money and make things more efficient – faced by consultants, contractors and others, themselves keen to keep their cash-flows in the black and armed with ‘take it or leave it attitudes’ – BIM tends to be the first ‘project luxury’ to get dropped.
Those keen on retaining the illusion of being the ‘innovative players’ within the industry, will promise to return to experimenting with this ‘BIM thing’ once the industry settles into a better trend, but when that really happens, they are likely to be too busy to ‘make hay while the sun shines’, doing BIM things only superficially and so the cycle keeps carrying on, giving any meaningful BIM little chance for developing into anything sustainable.
I do wish for this cycle to break sometime, for BIM to become the true answer to the global industry’s plight for help, when things get tough.
To have the players look for the ‘smarter’ for once, as opposed to just the ‘even cheaper’, when the margins thin down.
After all, what better environment to release the shackles of archaic methodologies of ‘drawing based documentation’ than recession hit projects hungry to still deliver win-win results for all involved despite the harsh environments they find themselves in?
What better opportunities to let the underdogs of the BIM-skilled world shine amongst their
non-BIM literate peers, than impossible to complete projects-turned into success stories?
An opportunity for enterprising players to employ outdated versions of Sim games to refine the design of large developments on, at fractions of costs and with high precision, a chance for some others to cut the paper as the medium fully out of their processes and turn loss-making projects into profitable ones? Projects destined for arbitrations and claim-wars, into vibrant money makers and time savers?
Unlikely to happen.
BIM is the ‘stiletto heel’ of the AEC industry.
In good times, it is kind of a status symbol, cool and funky, though often expensive and worn by the jocks, simultaneously glamorous, uncomfortable and impractical.
In an emergency, downright useless.
In an aircraft emergency, can one slide down wearing them an emergency slide?
That says it all, for BIM.
That says it all, for BIM.
Picture from here:
Thursday, July 16, 2015
An open request to the author of the article: ’How Building Information Modeling Saved One University $10 Million’ – Please substantiate your claim!
There’s been a great little ‘article’ circling the web recently, claiming ‘How Building Information Modeling Saved One University $10 Million’.
I managed to ignore the item for a while – must have subconsciously filtered out the headline with dozens of others, on how one person became rich by… or lost a lot of weight by… and other types of ‘easy magic news’ that I’m bombarded with on a daily basis.
For some time I refrained from reading it even as it kept tenaciously popping up on ‘serious’ industry forums and news – though by this stage I could see that it was not a ‘spoof’ but pretending to be a ‘real’ news.
When it started reaching me attached to personal messages – sent by people I know have reasonably sound experience in the field, noting how it validated ‘my work’ as well, I finally felt the need to read it properly and comment on it.
Let me make it clear, I do not question the ability and capability of BIM to save money, time or other resources.
If anything, a well applied BIM could ‘save’ funds for construction clients, contractors or consultants much higher than the 3% quoted here.
I also have no intention to question that everyone involved on the project has done a great job either; we are talking Portland, Oregon, after all.
However, in spite of its scientific look, this writing is nothing but an infomercial for a series of BIM related tools and consultants. And not that great at that, either.
The tools and processes are described in a clumsy, exaggerated and superficial way, staying at a pretty safe ‘high level’ definitions, while the end results of the same processes quoted are surprisingly specific, sometimes down to two decimals.
The author uses ‘design’ and ‘construction related documentation’ interchangeably, mixes up tools with approaches and vice versa, ‘confidently’ summarizes what BIM ‘is’ in a couple of sentences, gives us a no-fail ‘How to save millions’ recipe and tops it all off, with the ‘Lesson learned: The machines have won’.
‘C’mon – no harm done really’ – tell me my friends and fellow BIM enthusiasts.
‘Hold back the vitriol, all publicity is good publicity for BIM. Good for the cause’.
But is it really?
Is there no danger in letting unchallenged articles like this spread over the global BIM networks?
Quantifying supposed ‘Realized savings with BIM’ packaged under sensational headlines?
Junky Data on BIM to feed the BIM junkie in you?
One can say it could be funny if it was not quite sad – and dangerous – today it is a shallow article, tomorrow it turns into a ‘proven’ case-study in a BIM Handbook, the day after, it morphs into something a mandated requirement is based for everyone. (UKBIM anyone?)
I ask the author to expand on the story. Apart from expecting a thoroughly explained conclusion on the savings as well as the statement, that the machines had won, here are some further questions that could be raised to make this effort of redoing the article worthwhile:
Who ‘pocketed’ the supposed savings? The client? Did it go back to their Building-funds to be used on their subsequent projects? Or was it not a ‘real’ saving after all – i.e. it would have been additional cost, had the super-duper BIM not been implemented? How would that additional cost been justified then? Especially if ‘normal’ approaches were used.
The architects talk ‘billable hours’ – were these hours already quoted for (and contracted to do) or left for change orders to claim later?
Were the savings shared across the board of all participants? Equally or based on a particular key?
Had the consultants been selected on the basis of this, projected saving and their capability to deliver on it?
Was the budget set ‘realistically’ in the first place or overinflated?
Were the savings part of the contingencies, that by their nature could be spent or saved?
Were there NO variations claimed by the contractor due to poor, inadequate documentation or had they been already deducted from the ‘savings’?
I also have hundreds of ‘what if’ scenarios I could throw in the pot… what if different procurement method was used, could the savings had grown? Or would they have shrunk?
If not Autodesk was the main supplier of the tools but a competing company with their own (possibly better) products? If there was more (or less rain) that year? If the team was more or less competent?
These are all ‘guesswork’ questions, some pure speculation.
After all, most building projects are speculative endeavors. A budget is guessed – lots of processes, scientific, technical and less so, take place over some time (months, years, decades), wheeling and dealing sets the tone of the project and keeps it throughout – some people do some pretend work and others some real, some companies come out of it in black, others end up in red.
The process concludes in a building that more or less fulfills the needs and requirements set up at the beginning.
BIM has a place in the process described above and if used well, can benefit one, two or more (but rarely all) the parties involved.
Exploring its impact on a project is a worthwhile exercise from whatever angle it is done from.
But making off-hand claims that are dubious to say the least, is reckless and can potentially hurt the entire industry.
Monday, June 22, 2015
I couple of days ago I received a message inviting me by “Building” to a live audio webinar, titled: “What makes a good BIM client? And what to do if things go wrong”, in association with 4Projects. (see link below).
I’ve read through the agenda a couple of times and have a bit of an idea what they are about, but really, what with the topic? A how to become good BIM client webinar?
Why, have I been a bad one? Am I a BIM client at all? Would I want to be? Why would anyone ‘want’ to be a BIM client good or bad?
Can someone explain?
Saturday, June 13, 2015
At least once a year I like to review the status of my career and reassess the direction it is headed for.
Should I stay as a ‘pretend Project/Design manager’ for another year or should I jump back onto the BIM bandwagon and continue my interrupted career of a ‘pretend strategic BIM manager’?
Both roles have advantages and disadvantages for me, but for the last 5 years neither had achieved a convincing victory over the other, rather they keep trying to entice me over to their side for good, by universal scare tactics and or the promise of nirvana.
‘The pro-BIM ‘side regularly finds me (mostly via recruiters) and encourages me to re-deploy the considerable subject related experience and skillset I have. They urge me to do this within the area of BIM-enablement of the masses involved in BIM mandated giga projects spread all over the world. This side of the pendulum preaches that the ‘Doomsday for the BIM illiterate’ is close and the future for real BIM expertise is bright.
‘The forget BIM’ (or any meaningful and positive progress to the way the industry is run) side on the other hand also grabs me at any chance given, with the reality of an industry that has no need for sophistication, innovation and BIM type of skills and where one’s biggest asset is still one’s ability to bluff. The pendulum here radiates with the darkness of a misplaced career.
This Strange Case of ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’ of the AEC/BIM flavours is not an illness I suffer from on my own, there is a significant proportion of the industry that I see perpetually flung from one end to the other of the ‘love BIM/hate BIM’ dilemma.
Significant in numbers yet scarily un-influential these people can be identified by changing their professional role descriptions by dropping or re-embracing the BIM acronym.
The scarier side of this game is that it tends to reflect the way the industry is doing overall – it is (oddly) when things go well and construction is buzzing that BIM gains momentum, when it is spooked and sluggish it is back to basics – no frills CAD.
Over the years I stumbled on an event, that more than anything helps me in my struggles to decide what side should I be on when trying to predict what shade of the proverbial war of ‘good and evil’ is likely to dominate the AEC world for the near future, and that is the ‘Annual Autodesk Product launch’.
To justify their ongoing upgrade-subscription and support fees, almost all major ‘BIM tool providers’ seem to agree that an annual bash for the party faithful is a good idea, even if not a lot of good news is there to share.
New slogans get forget, banners printed, interactive games devised and invitations get sent out.
Autodesk, the self-proclaimed leader of the pack, does these events with the nonchalance of the ‘not need to try too hard’ predetermined winners.
No personal tags for the attendees, mints on the tables or classy black pencils embossed by the host hotel. The coffee machines run dry half way through the event and the queues for the dinner are slow and long. (the food was a notch better this year than some others before).
In spite of the predictable format of the event, the tone of it varies from year to year depending on what the audience is likely to be perceived to be there for.
In some years, there are large groups of people new to BIM lured in by the promise of a good niche-career, likely to rocket them ahead of their peers.
On others it is mostly ‘everyday’ users looking for an evening out and checking out if their ‘tip suggestion’ has finally made the cut and got implemented by the Developer Gods of the Ivory Towers of Autodesk.
The hosts, catering for one group or the other (sometimes for an unfortunate mix of both) design their presentation around ‘big-picture – no-need to know details revolutionary materials’ or ‘cram in as many as possible hands-on new features on live files –evolutionary content’.
This year’s launch of the Autodesk products was the latter, and while the technical presenters were very good in their areas of expertise (it takes balls to demonstrate live anything, anywhere) – I found my mind wondering, deliberately trying to drown out the monotonous tone of those on stage sounding not unlike car auctioneers.
Still, I stayed the length of the event – an achievement of its own, since over years I’ve gained an embarrassing recognition of the ‘one that likes to walk out prematurely’.
I left the occasion happy to have seen a handful of ex colleagues – people I’m always glad to catch up with.
I also gained a reasonably good idea on which side the pendulum of ‘BIM/no BIM’ is likely to swing to in the near future and consequently what side of my pretend SM-Expertise should I keep showing to the world I work in.