Wednesday, June 27, 2012

A BIM traitor or the Devil’s BIM advocate?

I get sometimes accused of letting down the holy-idea of BIM by poking holes into statements hard to substantiate.So be it, I support doing things well and for the right reasons.

 “A head-to-head comparison of adjacent renovation projects (one with Building Information Modeling (BIM) and one without) has put to rest the question of whether BIM pays off for small-scale facility upgrades.”Says the byline of the article* promoted by buildingSMART.

 It could be a piece of writing worth sticking on the wall, laminated.Unfortunately the numbers give me little confidence. Apples for apples? A fruit salad, maybe.Has the reporter got a bit carried away?

 The last paragraph brings back reasonable-reasoning:“All future projects will utilize BIM. We see BIM as a key to reducing our lifecycle costs,” says DiFranco. “By enriching our models with relevant, useful information, we can better maintain our assets, make our staff more productive, and reduce costs.”

 Sounds sensible, but then, why back it with the ill-matched up numbers?
Is the company trying to justify its decisions by creative-statistics?

 What I sense here is insecurity and division as opposed to a company confident in its processes.
If they were really saving significant-figures by using tools they believed in, would they tell their work-methods to the world?
Only if they were selling the ‘tools’ as opposed to the ‘results-achieved-with-them’.