Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Carillion goes bust and guess what, it is no one’s fault! In fact, we should all unite to support those that are left without a job!


‘Carillion PLC was a British multinational facilities management and construction services company headquartered in Wolverhampton, United Kingdom. It was the second-biggest construction company in the UK.[4] Listed on the London Stock Exchange, the company experienced financial difficulties in 2017, and went into compulsory liquidation on 15 January 2018.’ (Wikipedia).

As someone that watched with interest how Leighton (a similar Australian ‘giant’) went down, or pretended not to, but still did, I experience a lot of feelings of a de ja vu in hearing the news regarding Carillion.
Having followed the machinations of Balfour Beatty and numerous other global counterparts over the years, I have formed my views on what is behind this ‘little stumble’ of Carillion.
(note, the UEA partnership is in no way effected – say the news, so Al Futtaim guys, rest easy).

Yet, and entirely predictably, the good Brits are all very sorry and compassionate with the ones left without a job due to the unfortunate turn of circumstances.
HR consultants are falling backwards to give these souls a leg up into another career somewhere just as lucrative and (hopefully) stress free as working for Carillion was.

After all, it was not their fault.
Or was it?
Was it management?
Or was it not?
Where had management came from? Who put them in their cushy chairs?
What about the clients?
Oh, no, it was the industry.  The crises.
We had a crisis recently, haven’t we? We must have had. The AEC is all about crises.
Unpredictable too. Crises and all. Did I say crises?

I am sorry, but this is all so ‘back to kindergarten’ behavior.
No one to blame. No one to fault. No responsibility. Hold hands tight. Sing loudly.
Or keep your mouth shut, make sure the circle survives intact.

Please, do me a favor. Let Carillion sink.
Let the good people employed by it join me and others looking for work and fight the fight for the right to work out on merits, capabilities, credits, experience.
Let the good ones thrive, let the bad ones drop.

Yeah, I know it will not happen. Not this time. Maybe not even next time.

But I keep trying.








Footnote: Large ‘national’ construction companies had never been too far in their attitude to life from banks and financial institutions. Too big to fail, too big to care. Ocean liners, built for fair weather sailing only, when it gets a bit rough, leave the passengers in the water as fish-food – the captains are the first to flee. Again, the industry is littered with them, they lose nothing, move to the next ocean liners to blob on until things get rough.

Footnote 2: Quoting Paul Gibson: ‘If it wasn't for the fact that genuine hardworking individuals weren't caught up in all this and decent well-run companies also then it would be bloody laughable.’ After 30 years in the industry, where I always considered myself to be a ‘genuine hardworking individual’ – (and show me one, that does not think that of themselves, my ex-Leighton mates Hamish and Jeremy come to mind, not to talk about a lot of top Brit executives too) – I do lean towards the idea that we all (within and outside the industry) have the industry we deserve. After all, the behavior that causes these ‘shocks and after shocks’ is in no way new or concentrated to any particular country or area – so why aren’t we doing anything about it?



Monday, January 1, 2018

AEC Millennials, where are you? Where is your voice? Here is a New Year’s resolution you might like to consider!

I am 52 years old. And not a particularly young 52 either. My hair is grey, and my body shows the age. I forget things, can’t read without glasses and am not particularly agile.
And I work in the AEC industry. Have been for over 30 years. And all this time, I have been fighting a non-winnable war against its global cronyism, corruption and archaic ways of doing things (even of its mundane tasks).

I have done both theoretical and practical research over 3 decades, across all phases of design and construction and spanning almost all continents.
I written many, many words in my blog and upset at one point or other almost every major player (design or construction firm, software developer and HR provider) that there is.

I made enemies and secret admirers. I get open treats and couched support messages.

Yet, what still takes me by surprise, is the action or lack of, of the young people, entering the industry and functioning within it.
While I accept, that it takes a long time to understand the carefully hidden corruptive practices of the industry, the backwards ways of its information management must be obvious to anyone that had spent even the shortest time within it, let alone the Millennials, that have grown up ‘digital’.

“The most popular definition says, that Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.” (Wikipedia)

So, they are now in their late thirties at most and late teens at least.

Without going into complex statistics, as a rule of thumb, if the industry employs people from 18 to 65 years of age, there should be at least 40% of this workforce that falls age-wise into the Millennial category.
Sure, university training will mess up the numbers (though the trade part is often entered at an even earlier age than 18) – and at the other end, some hang around for longer than 65 – but even if this percentage is a conservative 25%, we are still talking about large numbers.

Having 3 daughters within this age-category, I also know from a personal experience that they vary greatly in how they handle digital information, but it is common for all, that by default, they take their information ‘digitally’.
The arty types will, of course venture into pretty diaries, hand written journals and within the architectural corner of the industry hand-sketching, physical model making etc.
But by and large, when it comes to ‘fundamental’ information creation, management and exchange, they will use their phones – pad – laptops – watches….etc.

I intended this post to be for them, so let’s switch to ‘you’.
What interest me, is why do you, when you enter the AEC industry fall so easily and without much noise into its archaic ways of information management?

Why are you prepared to use ‘word’ and ‘excel’ when you likely have ideas, what tools could be developed to do the same tasks more effectively and likely more enjoyably?
Why do you accept that the industry splits into those that create the technical information (draftsmen, modellers) and those that use it (everyone else) and don’t push for more hands-on, engineers and managers? Why do you accept that having a bit of access to Grasshopper or Rhino is the pinnacle of coolness on offer? Why do you ever settle for AutoCAD?

Let me make some guesses, why that is.

Firstly, I know you get hammered with the ‘lack of technical knowledge’ mallet.
It is likely true, that you come into the industry with a significant deficiency in comprehending how buildings come together, but that is not a ‘fault’, it is just the way several things collide to work against you.
(i.e. the education system, the unwillingness of knowledge sharing by those in the known, the relative uniqueness of buildings, the myriad of potential ‘problems’ you face etc. etc.).

Secondly, you get quickly put into a position to pick between furthering your ‘real career’ or carry a label of a CAD-guy (or even BIM-guy) for the rest of your life.
And, if you elect to climb the ‘real’ ladder, you will likely learn better not to question the tools and processes cemented within the system.
On the other hand, if you go the CAD-BIM direction, you may find some satisfaction in being amongst similarly ‘techy’ ones, but you soon find out that you might as well kiss goodbye to engineering or other serious management progression as well as picking your own tools (you can chose anything, as long as it is Autodesk).

If I were you, I’d be really peeved off, having these choices on offer (and only these choices).

But having selected and arrogantly pursued the ‘have your cake and eat it’ mantra over 3 decades at a price too high and bitter for most people to accept, I understand why you do it.

Yet, I can’t help thinking that, the power is there in (and with) you, all of you individually and as a group, just somehow you are not quite seeing it.

So, let me put some bugs into your heads.
The generation that owns this industry has no right to ‘own’ it.
It has no right to blackmail you into submission based on your ‘lack of technical knowledge’. Building buildings is after all, not a rocket science, everything that there is to it, can be collected, recorded, and made available to others.
Create a knowledge database and share it.
Challenge the idea that being a hands-on manager (i.e. creating your own models to supervise construction or project manage others) is something to be ashamed of.
Use the tools on hand and develop new ones to give you an advantage and expose the bluffers.

You tend to be informed customers when it comes to your food and clothing, so don’t just accept blankly that your buildings are documented ‘somewhere else’ (and this is not a blank statement against outsourcing).

I don’t necessarily advocate that you individually risk your employments by being revolutionary and non-conforming, but if organised in a group, you can be a huge force in smartening up the industry, cleaning it up of its dead weight and free-loaders and making it into an industry that the smartest will want to join and be proud to be part of.

So, rather than making a big ruckus, though haven knows, the industry needs it, get yourselves organized and revolutionize by stealth!

Happy New Year AEC Millennials!




Sunday, December 17, 2017

BIM 360: One small step forward for Autodesk = Two huge steps backwards for the global AEC industry

 Last week I went to an Autodesk Event.
No need to be telling me to ‘eat my words up’ and recalling my history of Revit-bashing on this blog.
Just because I do not enjoy modeling with Revit, I can keep an eye on what is happening in the industry, especially while the authors of my tool of choice are merrily basking in their achievements having ‘invented’ the ‘Year of the stair’.

It also helps when the event is free and comes with a dinner, though I had paid for a hotel room to stay overnight, committed to keep the local economy in some sort of equilibrium.
While lapping up the free Christmas atmosphere of one of the better venues of downtown Abu Dhabi, I was introduced to the ‘Next Generation BIM 360 Platform’ of Autodesk, designed to connect the Entire construction process into a seamless ‘something’.

There is nothing wrong with the concept.  Nor is it terribly new.
What is interesting is, how Autodesk is once again focusing on the ‘Information’ as opposed to ‘Model Based Information’.
Combined that with their new licensing model and I can almost deduct that they have given up on BIM, altogether.

Not that anyone is admitting to be doing this, of course -  hardly one sentence of the presenter was uttered without the favorite acronym in it, but the doom signs for BIM were ‘on the wall’.

In a way, I cannot even really blame them for the move.
Autodesk figured out (finally) something that so many can’t.
There are zillions of people employed within the global AEC industry, yet only a tiny fraction uses ANYTHING digital specific to the industry, let alone any form of a moderately sophisticated BIM.

So why bother trying to sell and further the development of this complex, difficult to understand, even harder to use multi-dimensional system, when they can go back to the basics and leverage their market monopoly to snatch away the good ‘cash-flow cow’ of the market, that of storing and sharing basic information.
Mostly 2D or text based and PDF formatted.

This Autodesk Platform offers everything under one banner, cloud storage, easy accessibility, one-point control, automated task tracking, intelligent reporting etc. etc.
It also gives the perfect excuse for the introduction of a per/seat licensing that touches many more bottoms that any of the authoring software licenses ever had, even in the hay-days of the Flat-CAD, AutoCAD of the late eighties and throughout the ninetees.

Indeed, this is the case of Autodesk realizing that the true bread and butter of the industry is based on doing large projects and clipping the ticket on shifting mountains of 2D documents around, with a bit of 3D thrown in for keeping up appearances.
And BIM is going on the back seat big time.

This is the case of Autodesk biting in the pie currently shared between Microsoft, Aconex and a conglomerate of smaller document management systems on the market.

Unless I missed something, the business model is based on charging each user on the project accessing the cloud based information, no matter on the type of information or the tool used to access (or author/edit) it.
So, the more users and the less sophisticated they are, the better off Autodesk is.
(Please correct me if I am wrong).

And it kind of gets worse.
For those that feel uneasy about the new model and select to stick with status quo, they will be limited to use the software for the current version only and forever. No backwards – no forward compatibility.
A reasonable ‘stick’ from the software supplier for the naughty users?

Not sure.
With virtual Monopoly come responsibilities.
And, one of those would be to treat the industry with a bit more honesty.
To have come out transparently saying that they entered this part of the market to generate more income for R&D, for say increasing the critical mass of BIM users would have gone down much better.

For me anyway.















I rarely do this, combining my responses to comments triggered by a blogpost, but partially because of LinkedIn ‘s limitations on the length of each response, partially because I wanted to have these recorded with the original writing, I have added them here, together with the original comments:

Bram Lyng Andersen
 Most companies make highly annoying "tough management decisions" (the quotes are for sarcasm), at some point the group and power of the people making these decisions gets larger than the group of people that are actually inventing/believing/working. It seems AD have hit this wall years ago. Problem is success is money and money attracts management types/sharks :)

This is a very interesting statement Bram, and I wish to expand on it:

First: You are absolutely right, this is a significant problem that soaks through the entire industry. I actually see (what you mention to be ‘larger’) to be ‘much larger’ – i.e. the difference  between the  numbers of ‘hands-off, decision-makers’ and ‘hands-on, dowers’ is HUGE and weighted strongly in favor of the first group.
Not only because, they are by default in the decision making seats and call the shots, but also because, they rely on ‘advisors’, almost as hands-off and indoctrinated as themselves, to back up those decisions. These ‘advisors’ are made up of the promoters/sellers of the tools, but also masses of in-house engineers, middle-managers, team leaders, coordinators…etc..,
who due to their hand-off-ness will naturally support whatever direction will least compromise their own positions.

Second: Not sue that ‘AD have hit this wall years ago’ – or if they have, I think they actually managed to ‘use it’ pretty well in the past.
Give me any reluctant entity, faced with the need to make a call on where to go (2D, 3D …XD) and it will go Autodesk way.
After all, it is the biggest, best and Americanest.
Could just about be a slogan, ‘if in doubt, use Autodesk’.

Third: let me quote Marek’s comment:
Marek Sopel: BIM in itself is not a goal of any commercial activity. And why should it be? 
From software vendors perspective there is no significant difference what product they sell, but what they make on it. All of businesses (including education business) involved in BIM are here for profits (even if sometimes they fail - note, you can look at Autodesk attempts to introduce BIM software since early 90s as a streak of failures. Still it can be promoted as a huge success in the end because the profits are being made);

Autodesk have ALWAYS been on the back-foot in developing and getting things to the market, from their very first 3D packages (in the eighties) then back to 2D (in the nineties, AutoCAD on DOS) then their own VR-quasi BIM (late nineties,- anyone remembers Architectural Desktop?)…then the hastily bought and rehashed Revit etc. etc.
They failed and failed but managed to make those failures look like successes.
Meanwhile, they totally missed to notice the achievements of Aconex and others paddling centralized, 2D focused document-systems over the last 1.5 decades and I contribute this to Autodesk’s lack of true understanding of the market, or worse even, INTEREST in the market, which is quite bizarre, considering how many companies worldwide are still purely AutoCAD users.
Finally, some clever dude with AD has recognized this and convinced the company to jump onto the bandwagon. Sure, maybe a good move, but is this innovation? No.

Jason Mounteer Information has always been the key to BIM. Why shouldn't they focus on it? Modeled shapes help many people, but not all of them. 
The information that model conveys is more important. I can get better data from a well-executed 2d AutoCAD Architecture-based CAD set than I can from a poorly-executed Revit set. 
Communication and data presentation is what plan sets and specs are ALL about.

Jason Mounteer Additionally, I agree with the sentiment expressed by many, many, many of my clients and former colleagues: we ARE still in a 2d world. 

Architects & Engineers must still deliver that 2d data in the form of plan sets. We are a long way from municipalities and smaller subcontractors being able to get their hands on the models and pull information from them intelligently. 

Plan reviews are on paper. Estimating is done on PDF or Paper by these smaller, less tech-savvy subs. Customers/ Clients/ Owners still have back-end processes based on paper or (maybe) PDF output. We're still producing those "flat" files as regular order of business. 

Autodesk is behind the curve here in providing project managers methods to facilitate these workflows and get a handle on all this 2d information. Doc manager is a step in the right direction. Still a little behind its competition but catching-u

Jason, I read through your comments numerous times and while each sentence makes some sense – altogether I am not sure what are you intending to promote here.

The second comment is easier to address, as you seem to be more straight forward.
Still, the statement, that ‘we are still in a 2d world’ I can be interpret in two ways:
(one), yes, we are and proud of it, let’s forget all the attempts we (as an industry) had made to get out of it, and focus purely on workflows and tools to facilitate 2D,
or
(two), we aren’t overly happy with this state we are in, but kind-of don’t really know what to do about it so we pretend to be ‘in a transitional state to a full XD’.

My perception is, that the industry constantly (regularly) toggles between those two attitudes and by doing so, confuses the hell out of everybody.

Autodesk, never been particularly good at leadership (in spite of the fact they think they are) has been swinging in regular intervals over decades –
this latest, via the pushing of BIM360 is a swing to the ‘don’t really know what to do about it’ – direction with the underlining recognition that, others seem to know little as well, yet are making quite a bit of money of 2D (i.e. the more mature online document management systems do) – so why would Autodesk miss out on that piece of the pie.

Sure, they are calling it ‘BIM-something’, in case the pendulum swings to the other way in the near future – then, they can switch back and carry on fiddling with, and paddling on, the half-baked BIM solutions they produced so far.

Going back to your first comment, the part…

‘I can get better data from a well-executed 2d AutoCAD Architecture-based CAD set than I can from a poorly-executed Revit set. ‘

While the above may be true, means absolutely nothing for the industry as a whole.
I.e. sure, I still know a number of extremely competent architects that design/document and detail buildings in their heads and with pencils on sketch paper and do this much better than a hundred of carefully selected Revit power-users can, but they will not get the industry out of the whole it is in.

Not only because my extremely competent, ‘old school’ architects re small in numbers and will likely soon die out and ‘well-executed 2d AutoCAD Architecture-based CAD sets’ in reality are just as exceptional (especially on large projects) and require the same type of knowledge and skills that my ‘extremely competent old school architects’ have, but because the industry is in trouble not, because it is doing 2D or 3D, good or bad.

It seems to be relying on companies like Autodesk to provide them with ‘checks and balances’ when it comes to how information is created and managed (it should not be doing so but it does) and Autodesk could not care less to do so. (note again my previous statement: ‘With Monopoly come responsibilities’).


Don’t know if you are getting the idea, but it is hard to respond in a cohesive matter to statements that cover multiple facets of the industry, like the people, tools, approaches and somewhere down the line the manipulative moves of Autodesk where my post started from.
   

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

The case for architects with no hands – or why can’t the young of the AEC industry be successful without wanting to hand-sketch?

I am ‘a classically’ trained architect.
Meaning, through the 2+5 years of training to become first an architectural technician, than a Master of Architecture and Construction Sciences (a mouthful, I know) – I had all work done by hand, on paper, sketch and tracing paper, free-hand and/or using drawing instruments, with pencils or pens from design scribbles to full construction documentation.
These were the middle – to late nineteen eighties.

In the early nineteen-nighties, I started to work in real life and in parallel, dabbling with computers.
I got hooked very early on the idea of using the power of computers to assist the profession in design, documentation and construction management.
I was not quite sure then, how that will all happen, but it made a lot of sense to explore it.
Sure, I loved drawing by hand – I still do – but the process of developing designs via sketch paper and getting them documented onto tracing paper required a lot of wasted paper, scratching (with blades) and redrawing time.

Not everyone in the industry shared this enthusiasm for the emerging digital technology.
While the documentation part converted to its electronic equivalent ‘relatively’ painlessly, the idea of designing with no free hand sketching and paper involved, was an absolute no-no for most.
I’ll class the birth and growth of the FlatCAD industry to have been a ‘relatively’ easy and straightforward process for now, though it was not really either, but in comparison to the digitalization of the design process, at least it has achieved some sort of a critical mass in its uptake by now.

True, there has been some progress made into bringing technology into the design processes as well and numerous shining examples exist of digital design processes and outputs ‘happening’ within the industry.
Parametric modeling for difficult shapes and spaces, automated structural and mechanical calculations, environmental impact- traffic flow studies etc.

Yet, even the best examples that move beyond ‘one task based automation’ and into a somewhat holistic approach (like, what is generally classified as BIM) pale against the strongly upheld view that any process that is hand-less, sketch-less, paperless, yet claims to be ‘designing’  is somehow inferior to the old process of designing on the back of an envelope (throw in a smoke-filled bar and mostly men designers for effect too, why not?).

I have been listening for literary 2 decades to theories of, how those, that use ‘computers to design’ never develop the core skills of designing, because they never learn to sketch.
And scarily, this is one of the few statements that both the academia and the leaders of the industry (specially the architectural part of it) tend to agree on.

I tend to strongly disagree.
‘People’ that ‘use computers to design’ are likely to be young – or old but bitten by the techy-bug at a young age (like me);
I admit having observed, that the larger group, the young ones, when first hitting the industry are often truly lacking in many fundamental skills.
In fact, most of their real learning (just like ours had decades ago) comes while working and they will become useful 2-3 years into their career.

But this inability to fully contribute as fresh graduates must not be confused by their ability to learn anything and everything about design without the need to learn to sketch by hand.
Their capacity to carry projects from day one of their employment, design or document buildings successfully has nothing to do with the willingness (or lack of) learning to sketch by hand.
It has a lot to do, with the fact, that those that are charged to teach them the skills of becoming successful AEC professionals are out of synch with their charges’ affinities and force onto them the tools that are alien to them as well as archaic.

It may come across offensive to call a beautiful and quite romantic set of skills ‘archaic’, but I do stand by the statement, as this ‘unspeakable truth’ is highly damaging for the young people and stops them to meaningfully contribute and grow within the industry.

It confuses the software industry too, as they find themselves in the perplexing position of having to serve an industry split harshly across an age line. They tend to recognize who holds the drawstrings of the industry, consequently opt to provide for the oldies, and persist on ‘developing’ outdated products (like most CAD and even BIM software) – not to rock the boat too much.

Yet, the same people that frown on the young shunning the pencil and sketching are very happy to type their letters on word processors.
After all, architecture develops in the head and hand sketching is one tool to help, but just one, of many.
Technology should be encouraged to assist the head, as opposed to stigmatize those that attempt to use it or develop tools for others to use. Empower the abled bodies to get further (even the ones with fine-tuned hand sketching skills) and make the impossible possible for those unable or unwilling to hand-sketch.

I do not wish to exploit the often extraordinary skills, that people with disabilities develop to overcome their lack of extremities (for example) and become successful foot and mouth painters (http://www.mfpa.co.nz/ - do buy their beautiful Christmas cards), but I feel it appropriate to note, that while I do not know of any architects with such disabilities, I see absolutely no reason, while one should not be possible to become one with the help of technological tools.

It is scary to be needing to write these ideas in the current age, but sadly I feel it is still necessary and the urge to stand up (again) for the younger generation within the industry is with me and strong.



Picture from: http://www.mfpa.co.nz/artist/kevin-griffiths/





Monday, November 20, 2017

The average house in NZ will likely ‘earn’ much more than the average salary earner (person) this year!


 “Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's Point Chevalier home has increased in value by $350,000 in three years.
The 37-year-old is one of several notable Auckland homeowners whose properties have soared in price, revealed today in the council's new valuations.
Her house - co-owned by partner Clarke Gayford - increased by $350,000 from $770,000 to $1.12 million, a gain of 46 per cent, between 2014 and 2017.”

The above paragraph may suggest this post has little to do with BIM, but under the surface, it has everything to do with BIM.
Or, more precisely BIM has everything to do with the above statement.

Let’s play with the figures a bit:
According to official statistics in New Zealand, the year to the June 2017 quarter, for people receiving income from paid employment the median weekly earnings was $959, or about $49,868 per annum.
Take off taxes and that leaves around 42K/year.
Let’s divide the 350K (‘price increase’) by 42K and you’d get 8.3. Or the average kiwi salary earner would have to work for 8.3 years to match 3 years’ of ‘earnings’ of the current NZ PM’s house probably not doing much (i.e. not even rented out!).
Now, who would you rather be, that average kiwi or the (possibly not that flash) house?

And if you think, I am plucking out the extreme ends from the two scales, how about this:
“The average Auckland residential property value has jumped by 45 per cent across the region, taking the average house value in the city to $1.076m”.
Even if you triple the salary one might earn, the ratios are staggering.

I lived in New Zealand for 18 years. Almost all my working life I strived to enhance/innovate the Construction industry, including doing what is nowadays called ‘BIM’from the very early nineteen-nineties.
It did not work out for me, for us (my family) and one can dismiss that as a ‘sad story of a couple of losers’.

But, realistically, how can any BIM effort ‘work’ in an environment where one competes with such a crazy handicap?
Unfortunately, this is not a uniquely New Zealand issue – I have seen it happen around the world, although generally not to the same extremes.

Even though I left the country almost 8 years ago, it still hurts to see where it is going.
I once fell in love with New Zealand, for its promise of equality, opportunities and commitment to innovation.


(both quotes are from NZ Herald)

Image from here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/other-spaces/89238813/at-my-place-jacinda-arderns-1990s-brick-and-tile

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Free 3D PDFs :-)

Thank you all for coming to the Monthly Emirates BIM User Group Meeting on Monday. It was a great turn-out and a very attentive audience, I felt really privileged to present to.
The presentation had been recorded and will be made public soon. I will also work on fleshing out some of the details of the idea I presented, in a narrated Slide Show.
At the event I offered some fun examples of 3D PDFs to share – if anyone wishes to take me up on the offer, please message me through Linkedin.







Presentation now on YouTube, thanks for Stephane (the cinematographer), Florian and the Canadian University in Dubai

https://youtu.be/MY68O2pe4gU

Friday, October 27, 2017

Next EBIMUG meeting on Monday, 30. October, 6:30pm at Canadian University Dubai

The Invite from the organizers, as far as I know you can turn up, no registration needed.

“Dear BIMmers,It is my pleasure and privilege to invite you to the October meeting of the Emirates BIM User Group.

We will meet Monday, 30th October at 6:30 in room B2-03 of the Canadian University Dubai. Upon entering the main entrance of CUD turn left and follow down the corridor to Block B. Inside Block B take the stair to the first upper floor and find room B2-03 at that level.

We will have two presentations: Zolna Murray will talk about “The future of BIM is paperless, literally”

Florian Techel will talk about “How (not) to convert a marketplace towards a new (BIM) paradigm

We look forward to welcoming you on October 30th.


The presentations will be recorded and shared afterwards.


Friday, October 20, 2017

Are BIM promoters guilty of underplaying the extent of self-development required from the ‘average Joe’ building participants to make even a relatively small-scale BIM project work?

There was an election in New Zealand recently and the country again has a woman Prime Minister, a young one too, full of charisma, charm and a promise to ‘make New Zealand a fantastic place (again)!’
I wish her and the country success. I really do. But I also cannot help but note, that what she needs to do is undo 20 or so years of damage and do that through measures that will be unpopular and possibly unacceptable for most of New Zealand Citizens.

So, the likely change in the things that matter (housing, education, health and poverty)? I’d say, very little. This has nothing to do with me being negative, but with people’s general inability to part with own privileges for some common good.

For small things, yes – we will have a home-bake to support this cause or that, we will crowed-fund for some poor sick kids’ surgery overseas, donate to build a Church Hall or School Gymnasium, but accepting (say) to have our own house’s ‘value’ slashed by a third so the property market is more accessible to the masses while locking the speculators out through special Government measures?
No way!

The entry to this blog is meant to set the tone, for another wakeup call in a topic close to my heart, that is the uptake of BIM within the industry and its relation to the chances of BIM exercises to succeed.

For a long time, I have been saying, that the real success of any BIM endeavor is the level of uptake of the people involved on the project.
If BIM is to succeed, it must become the language of the industry.
Any language that is spoken by a minority of those making up an environment, will struggle to make any impact and is likely to die out.
While we have highly capable BIM people across the board, the rest are at best ‘readers’ of the language (if trained to use viewers) but readers do not necessary make good language users as they really lack the depth of full literacy.

For example, if a house is built and the architect (maybe a sole, hands-on operator), other consultants and the builder can all meaningfully read and contribute to a BIM model, the uptake could be considered high.
At the other end of the scale, a huge airport development may have its own BIM department (of say 50 people) but the number of other ‘non- BIM literate’ people on the job will be in the thousands, therefore that percentage of BIM uptake will be significantly lower.

See, BIM can nowadays get introduced to almost any project, if you push the ‘right button’ (mandating, client pressure etc.) and most parties involved will ‘oblige’.
But that does not mean much really, as, as long it is possible both people and companies will try to conform to expectations without doing anything ‘radical’. 
Because, ‘radical’ means two things, enhanced level of risk and extra money to spend.
(possibly a lot of it).

People that have spent any time spreading the gospel of BIM, know in their hearts that there is no straightforward way around this. They must know.

Just like NZ’s new Prime Minister must know – that one’s own enthusiasm and wish for change can only go so far, if not matched by the masses putting their shoulders to the ‘wheel’.

Yet, they (the BIM promoters) are rarely seen explaining how truly difficult is to get one single person (from an age, say 30+) convert into a useful BIM-mer, let alone an entire project team or a company.
It is as difficult as making someone shed 10kg, be fit enough to run a half Marathon or learn a new language.

Yet, even those that know this, will hide it from their clients.
Instead, most self-styled BIM specialists will happily draw up implementation plans, with entries like ‘identify a BIM champion’, ‘train people in Nawisworks’ ‘set up internal libraries and standards’ etc. etc.

If challenged they will say things like, ‘change takes time’, ‘every little step matters’, ‘you can take the horse to the water, but you cannot force it to drink’ etc.ec….  

I disagree. There are times, places, issues where time is of essence.
Where half-hearted attempts to change, just will not cut, where little steps will end up being steps in place or going backwards, where someone needs to lead with honestly and real conviction, but also have the power and means to deliver, even through measures unappealing to individuals.

Going back to the language parallel, one can speak a language badly, poorly, incorrectly – but for someone to be considered fluent in it, there is a minimum threshold of competencies to have.

A similar threshold can be established for BIM competency for participants of any project, however this concept is something that most BIM promoters get extremely uneasy about. Because, they know (but are scared to say) that getting all of the non-BIM speaking ‘average Joes’ of construction projects to that minimum threshold is an extremely difficult job.

Yet, this would possibly do more good than all other attempts together to make a real breakthrough in re-establishing a speaking-reading-writing industry.









Thursday, October 12, 2017

BIM can’t change the industry, only the industry can change the industry!

I don’t often quote myself from the past (or I don’t think, I do) but when recently, FB popped up with a message from 5 years ago, I felt the need to do so.
The post was a link to an article that BIG Project ME (link at the bottom of the page) published on my blog 5 years ago.
Apart from the fact that almost every part of the write-up is relevant now, there were parts of the article that sounded quite ‘profound’ even when scrutinized by the self-mocking cynical BIM- self, of the present days.

Take the sentence from the title and its context:
“BIM can’t change the industry, only the industry can change the industry. The industry can change the industry and only by being determined to do so, as opposed to simply saying it wants to change.
BIM can help of course, by assisting those that recognize where the industry is lacking an ability to self-repair, by providing smart tools and processes.”

But the patting of own back for coming up with such ‘deep thoughts’ disappears as I do a bit of math.
I consider myself to be an active BIM practitioner since 1995. That is 22 years. 5 years out of 22 is about 22%. That is a pretty large chunk of a lengthy career where something I cared about deeply then (and now too, to some extent) had not matured much, in-spite of massive efforts by many, to get it grow and ‘change the industry for better’.
I know that many find this repeated statement of mine (how Global BIM has stopped growing some years ago) annoying and even deeply insulting to the good people of BIM, but for me it is what I see.
People also say, I read the situation to be so grim, because I ‘mix with the wrong crowds’ and am unaware of the exact shape of BIM globally, but if things were going that greatly by now the successes would have filtered down to the masses and ‘best practices’ become ‘everyday practices’ even in the unsophisticated circles I move in.

So, apologies for all the honest BIM folk out there, but the ‘one step at the time’ and ‘any improvement is better than no improvement’ does not sit well with me on this topic.

For the industry that is notoriously incapable on delivering on self-imposed targets within its core areas, to accept that its most heralded improvement program is totally underperforming and do nothing to acknowledge that and come up with a Plan B, is at the least disingenuous if not straight misleading.

‘Stop winging and come up with alternatives’ is the other most reoccurring comment I get – I believe I have in the past but to those that missed the little gems of positive suggestions within my writings, there will be a full lecture I will be giving to the Dubai BIM Group on the 30th October at the Canadian University.

The content will be made available on this blog in some form.
In the meantime, read the 5 year old article:   




Friday, October 6, 2017

Today’s Global BIM is in worse shape than the one we started off 20 years ago (Note to myself: Brace for hate-mail)


‘What is BIM?’ – is probably the most off-putting intro question to anyone listening to a BIM presentation that a speaker can pull up, yet it comes up time after time at BIM conferences and lectures.
In a way, I understand why that is – audiences generally vary in their understanding of BIM to such extent, that speakers feel obliged to always start from the beginning.
And then, there is another troubling issue about the question – the answer is actually NOT that obvious, and it varies from application to application.

For example, while almost everyone publicly agrees that no-one software (not even Revit) equals BIM – all sorts of other descriptions are likely to float around, from simple ‘one word’ depiction to highly complicated bullet-pointed explanations.

I used to like the word ‘approach’ for it, being a ‘language’, ‘a set of tools and processes’.

These days, if pushed, I say that BIM is merely a combination of a specific set of ‘Attitude and Commitment’ which leaves people usually dumbfounded and me alone.

Regardless of its name (I know, the acronym has been only around since Autodesk had invented it) or what it means for people, there are reliable ways on measuring its effectiveness and ‘maturity’ in the current day BIM market.

Still, while numbers should always reflect real pictures, statistics and surveys generally are a bit flawed and subjective, leaning to the expectation of their compilers.

So, those that claim BIM to be in a pretty good shape and maturing according to preset programs across the board, are likely to have some vested interest in making it look better than it really is.

Others, like me, that state, that the real impact (positive) on the global AEC made by the last 2 decades of BIM-push has been negligible are, also most likely blinded by their disillusionment due to the failure of their own endeavors.

Nevertheless, I stay firm behind the statement, that regardless of the good work of many people, honest intentions and lots of money, BIM had made not much more than a little dent in the ineffectiveness, sluggishness and generally archaic ways that the global AEC is run.

Worse even from that fact, it did little to improve the processes (don’t believe me, go to weekly meetings of medium to large projects), it had done almost nothing to increase accountability and decrease corrupt practices that plague the industry.

Yes, people create BIM bunkers, walk around with lasers, VR headsets and iphone models, but these are few and far between, are often just a gimmick, and most definitely operate below the magic line of real decision (and money) makers of the industry.

If I publicly ask for anyone to name a Project Director of a largish project with BIM competency, I am sure people will throw lots of names in the basket, but my experience (on lots of large and very large projects) is that there are NO Project Directors, Commercial Managers, Lead Planners, Control Managers, Project Managers that can be trusted with anything even close to ‘real BIM’ (or very, very few).
Sure, many will happily ‘chew the fat’ on the topic, but all their experience would be second hand, through others doing it for them.

Going back to the title, I seem to remember that 20+ years ago, when I started on BIM (that still had no name for it) it was much more fun to be involved with the movement.
Skeptics will say, that was no BIM, just 3D, but the fact is that I used 3D for documenting full buildings from the first day I learned ArchiCAD (4.5), applied appropriate materials (meta data!) – and jumped on the first opportunity of doing 4D models when I came across, the then extremely buggy and highly temperamental Construction Simulation. Furthermore, persisted using it for years, in spite of a scary number of failed movie making attempts and sleepless nights.

I also recall, that the BIM people of that era were approaching ‘issues’ with more criticality than the somewhat blind enthusiasm and misguided loyalty (to various parties)  of those now in charge do.
I hate to say (but must), the average IQ of BIMmers seemed to be a notch or two higher as well, even though the numbers involved may have been quite a bit lower, than now.

Internet was in its very early stage and emails still clunky, but the ArchiCAD worldwide support group moderated by Djordje Grujic was legendary.
You could put up questions at night New Zealand time and have numerous answers by real (not just self-styled) gurus next morning.

Sure, it was not all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows – the industry shunned us, happy to hire AutoCAD seamstresses by the dozens instead, many typing faster in lisp than talking in their own mother tongues, rather than even consider anything more than flatCAD.
CAD managers taunted us for file sizes and line types and fonts and RAM.
We were the weirdoes of the time, but we still felt we were the future.
I did, anyway.

Nowadays, I see no future for BIM, the way it is being pushed by flaky mandates, super-large companies ‘polished up global BIM policies’ and across the board reluctance to accept any criticism, reality checks or change of courses set by ‘standard makers’.
I say, I see no future for current BIM. But I do see future for something else helping the industry and maybe, just maybe able to bring the spark of the ‘early BIM times’ back to the oldies and the new wizzes of the industry.

I will explain it all at a presentation I will be holding on the 30th October 2017 at the Canadian University in Dubai.
Still working on a possible webcast, but if that does not happen, there will be a youtube video for those unable to come, but interested.