For the argument’s sake: let’s assume I was a smart woman.

Not that convinced of the above myself, I need to state it as a given, otherwise the theory I’m about to outline is not-worth considering:

BIM is useless without raising the level of integrity of the (construction) project-information.
Integrity of project-information cannot be raised without ‘robust and timely’ project data verification in place.
Robust verification cannot happen, or definitely not in an efficient/timely manner without the project’s middle-management getting their hands dirty and manipulating the data in a direct way.

Useless = costing extra w/o bringing in much value-for-money
Integrity of the project information = transparency; allows for the project management to have a finger on the pulse; know scope, timing, responsibilities, finances anytime, anywhere;
Verification = nominated parties are held responsible for the status of the data, anytime, anywhere.
Hands dirty = all decision-makers are able to assess, manipulate, filter and extract data without help; Anytime, anywhere.

The need to do an insanity check on someone putting this theory forward has two sides to it:
On one side, it is all very logical and many would argue to be doing exactly this.
On the other side, it is an impossible idea to deliver on.
I just have to think of a selection of the ‘middle-managers’ (construction, architecture, engineering) whom I had the pleasure to interact with over the last decade and I give up.