BIMocrisy: forgive me; I have no patience to tolerate it at this level any more.

How on earth can an architectural company claim any type of BIM-enablement when they can’t get their 2D areas right?

Let’s not name names.

It could happen to anyone, really.

Any old architectural firm could be asked to prepare a quick study of possible future space-uses in a highly complex job for one of the world’s most prestigious clients and to get it wrong.

After all, it is ‘just’ numbers we are talking about.

The timeframe was tight, they did their best.

They copied ‘areas’ as numbers over numerous floors into a spread-sheet without checking them and presented it to the client. Twice.

This is the same company that is regularly in attendance at BIM conferences and I can quote one of them personally speaking as a VIP guest, from such an event last year:

“Harnessing and leveraging innovative tools, has enabled our global studio to lead the design industry in producing cutting-edge solutions that are resulting in a new type of architectural engagement”…

The same esteemed professional has been quoted somewhere else too: ….” He spoke about Zero Emissions Design (ZERO-E) and how the next generation of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and parametrics integration is being applied to this leading research project …”

Note, we aren’t talking  3D zones or intelligent objects of any complexity!

Simple, 2D fills, sorted by space-categories.

Could someone please introduce them to the idea of integrated schedules?

And keep them out of BIM until they do learn to use them?

(pictures here were created for illustration of my point and done in the matter of seconds - all changes to the fills were instantly reflected on the spreadsheets too!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=18350