Sunday, January 2, 2011

Construction lost its language and no one protested?

I should define ‘my’ BIM at the start. Instead, I plan to go backwards and find my answers by exploring elements that are commonly associated with BIM and are easier to define.
Take for example how we communicate buildings:
In the past, when a building was needed, someone drew a plan, an elevation and sections to describe what it should be like. This process required both the originator of the information (the designer) and the one using the information (the builder) to be fluent in rules of orthogonal projections and know the meaning of symbols used. There also had to be a strong ‘common knowledge’ framework that both parties were familiar with, so certain assumptions could be made.
By now all three conditions have been all but lost; There is no universal understanding of how orthogonal projections work, there is no one standard of industry symbols and the common knowledge of widely used techniques is very thin.
So, I say that ‘the language’ the construction industry is based on has vanished, together with its grammar, letters and words (the equivalents of the 3 ‘conditions of communicating buildings’) and noone within the industry asked – hey, what is going on?
How could that be?
Thirty or so years ago ‘flatcad’ entered the construction industry.
Tomorrow: what proof is there to support this theory and what is ‘flatcad’?

1 comment:

  1. yep, had the opportunity recently to review the drawings for a frame structure. Seems like the the documentation team had modeled the thing up nicely in 3D and then hit the print button..zillions of A3 pages with 3D views of junctions and bolts but we were unable, from the drawings, to work out the dimensions of the main truss. Had to resort to some traditional methods.

    Looking forward to your thoughts over the coming year.