‘Don’t link your arguments to software packages, they weaken them’ – warn me people responding to my posts (they mean the arguments, not the packages, I guess);
While a software-neutral position may be more comfortable to comment from, I am not keen to go there for two reasons:
1/ Very few BIM experts out there are truly unbiased to software, even those that are in academia and remote from practice often wear ‘software tinted glasses’. For any meaningful progress, more scrutiny and rigorous discussions are needed. Someone got to do it, might as well be me.
2/ Software developers that claim to have ‘invented BIM’ are leading the field and are actively setting the standards, should not be allowed to shy away from the responsibility that these claims carry.
Autodesk cannot on one hand, grow their customer/client base trumpeting almost full ownership on BIM and its processes, Archicad parroting that ‘we were the first’ and Microstation implying that ‘we are the cleverest’ without also accepting that thousands of decisions are being made based on these claims almost every minute somewhere around the world.
Like the way junk food suppliers eventually did get called to task in their role of obesity-epidemics, software manufacturers and suppliers within the BIM field should be also made responsible for their acts and/or lack of action when new BIM-ers are being created.