It is one thing to be needing to fight the self-proclaimed ‘industry leadership’ of some tool promoters within the BIM field, a different ball-game altogether to be regularly put in a position to face-off with a ‘document’ heralded as the ‘blueprint’ for BIM.
I’ll refrain from analysing the hundred-thirty something page document* line-by-line and focus on 2 points where the Penn State CIC Research Team (I believe) got it majorly wrong:
These are in their ‘BIM use Maps’.
First: they illustrate the process as being made up of steps where ‘author design’ is followed by ‘perform coordination’...
...then they show pictures of little documents used for information-exchange labelled as
‘architectural model’, ‘structural model’, ‘MEP model’...
For the first point, I’d solve the issue by putting the two into one box!
(author design AND perform coordination).
True, this would totally mess up their tidy-little-flow-chart, but that is the whole point.
Life IS messy.
For the second point, let me say this: I may take a sore ear to an Otolaryngologist, my foot doctor may be called a Podiatrist, and I may ask my GP to check why my blood pressure is high.
Still, I can guarantee that under no circumstances will I willingly leave any of these body-parts at the corresponding medical specialist to be looked after without me being there.
See the connection?