Interesting article, regrettably very thin on metrics.We learn the extent of the job (in square feet, room numbers and disciplines) and the number of current and likely future models, but are given hardly any data on how and what makes this BIM application exceptional when it comes to benefits to any of the parties involved.
There are the customary ‘power statements’ peppered through, the ‘better visual understanding’, ‘improved communication’, ‘easier problem solving’ – but still no parameters given for quantitative assessment used for measurement, or methods of comparison employed to track performance or production.
The lack of metrics is overshadowed by the almost apologetic tone of the writing with many hidden (and not so hidden) excuses aimed at the direct client. (HLMR)
The ‘real’ client, the remote one, SEHA is not mentioned, apart from indirectly, where the brief and specifications for the project BIM are noted early in the article.
A surprising omission, considering their role in setting up the project to be a full BIM-one at the beginning.
That little fact, I would have thought, on its own would have freed up iTech of needing to justify their own- and BIM’s existence on this Earth.
(as in: You asked for it!)
Why indeed did they have to run back to ‘mummy and daddy’ for support in the last two paragraphs, listing various governments, BuildSmart (was it meant to be buildingSMART?) and their studies as ‘proof’ that BIM is profitable and ROI very high, is a bit of a puzzle for me?
Unless they felt the need to provide the framework to place the currently fashionable ‘trail-blazing public companies’ term amongst the known BIMmers of the world.
Regular readers of CW will remember iTech labeled as such earlier in the year.http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-16128-itech-uses-bim-bang-whizzery-at-al-mafraq-hospital/