You can still say ‘no’ to BIM

Truly. I’m not doing an about-face here, the BIM movement at the moment could do with more people saying ‘no’.

For the right reasons, of course, just as the ones saying ‘yes’ should be doing it only because they truly believe in it.

Recreating a non-BIM-PC environment would have two main benefits:

One, it would inject real scrutiny to the system, questions only whispered currently would be asked openly; A simple one, comes to mind: “Why?”

Or extended versions of it: ‘why should we be doing this ...when it is making us do this?’ or ‘failing to allow us to do that’ or whatever...

As long as tools, systems and services providers in-and-out of houses (projects) were requested/allowed to meaningfully argue their case - there would be progress.

Second, practitioners would start separating into more clear-cut ‘types’, the 3 categories being:

Those that practise BIM, know why they’re doing it and can sell the concept to others;

Those that refuse to do BIM but do a splendid service without it by employing traditional (or alternative) methods and those, that are just drifting not quite sure what to do;

I applaud building owners that take the initiative to have their projects delivered in a BIM environment, but those providing the requested tools and services should be able to ask all the ‘why?’ questions they needed to.

Will Aconex* figure it out before the others?

Quite some time ago, I prepared a series of images explaining the idea of the Project BIM Environment based on the parallel of the development of Trans-Atlantic transportation systems. Needless to say (see pictures) that the parallel went down like a lead balloon and I shelved the concept for a while.

Most parties I was talking to were still wrapping their tongues around the unpronounceable word of ‘interoperability’ and refused to see that creating an environment where the interoperability process can happen is just as important as the process itself. So another 5 years have gone by merrily, without real progress made to tools and systems for BIM PEs.

Naturally I blame the software vendors for this state of affairs; Admittedly, some started to dabble in ‘platforms’ and most are now in a ‘cooperative mode’ but it is all a bit too little, too late.

In these last five years companies like Aconex have built a reasonable following within AEC and digital (online) project environments do exist on most large(ish) projects, however, no real BIM aspects have made in into them*.

Two things need to happen, move on from digitising parts of buildings to creating digital project environments and work with companies that already sell digital Project Environments .

Or, do the first and knock the incumbents off their perch by providing a true BIMPE.

* I’ve read that Newforma works with Revit; (only)

The accuracy fallacy

“I hate accuracy in CAD!” I remember a friend declaring 2 decades ago. I also recall, early in my career, small-scale-builders giving me a hard time on construction sites for dimensions on my drawings ending with 2,3,7 (mm);

Accuracy is a tricky thing – a double edged sward. It is not an interchangeable term with dimensioning, however the two are closely related.

Over the recent times, often guided by PI insurers, design consultants have developed an almost pathological fear of dimensioning. You can leaf through hundreds of sheets of IFC sets with very little dimensioning on them, to then find yourself on ‘setout’ drawings that have random dimensions all-over the place, including positions of section-markers and loose furniture.

“Traditionally” a dimension meant an instruction: somebody thoughtfully set out grids, openings, fittings in all 3 directions. There also existed a common knowledge of relationships and min dimensions for typical details.

In CAD/BIM world, dimensioning became an after-thought – if the CAD file was accurate, a somewhat automated afterthought.

This on its own should’ve not been a problem if the thinking had gone-in when the digital file was originally prepared, i.e. walls were set out to some logic, same for openings.

Tolerances taken into account between various elements and a 3D grid set in stone.

Applying uncontrolled dimensions is a dangerous practice, BIM/CAD accuracy will not help you there.

The sidewalk syndrome: A sign of a maturing BIM?

Presumptuous I may have come across when I commented on the CME acronym (Common Model Environment) a couple of days ago, I was very pleased to see someone finally pulling the word ‘Environment’ into the BIM picture.

For far too long, far too many of us have been defining BIM as ‘digitally representing buildings’. Focus was on the building, or even more on the software to represent the building, parts and assemblies, sometimes relationships but rarely the project environment. (PE)

The PE continued to be a fragmented, imaginary, notional place that loosely interacted with tangible representations of parts of it.

A real life equivalent I see often, when travelling. Lots of places in the world have some nice buildings. Individual houses, public creations, well thought, beautifully crafted. Even places ravaged by civil wars in relatively recent times will have the Nuevo Riche beautify their newly acquired spots.

When I look for signs of stability, maturity and hope, I look at sidewalks. The condition of these strips that connect the buildings to each other and the world tell me if the thinking process has moved from the buildings to the environment.

The digital project environment is not a new concept, AutoCAD’s Model Space laid excellent foundations for its development many years ago. Unfortunately, largely neglected, it stopped maturing.

Time to focus on the Project BIM Environment!

Won’t do no more, BIM101...

Went to the girls’ school a couple of days ago*.

At the entry there’s a sign: “We are a Nut free school!”

I wondered: does the exclusion apply for 2 legged nuts too? Got in regardless, so maybe not. **

Curiously enough, the school and its ability and sometime lack of it, to cater for children of different ages and different stages prompted me to finally make a statement:

I’m moving on from BIM101. If you don’t know what BIM is, find it out yourself!

This decision’s been also helped by numerous events lately where I was explained again and again, what BIM was.

If you are serious about doing well in AEC – you should learn what BIM is, not necessary because of all the benefits that will come your way once you employ it, but because someone might use it against you in the near future without you even realising it.

The internet is bursting with BIM101 – and it is so repetitive that you will quickly get the gist of it. And if you want a fancy presentation with walking, talking pretty pictures call in your local anyCAD supplier and they will customise a BIM theatre just for you.

As in the snakes and ladders game – sometime you’ve got to go back to the beginning.

In this game, I’ve had my share of snakes.

 *  The place of the handicap toilets

** Shouldn’t be making fun of allergic conditions.

Who owns the column?

C16 is not a column yet, a figment of imagination and a square on a paper.

A square or a rectangle, depending if you are looking at the soft-copy-representation (of the hard-copy-print) of the architect’s or structural engineer’s imagination.

The architect visualises C16 as a tall and skinny piece, with a rectangular footprint of 400x1000. For the structural engineer, C16 needs to be square. They may have reached a compromise by now, that had not get onto the drawings yet.

Petty these drawings have been issued for construction.

I look at C16 and think ‘clash detection.’ How would you automatically clash detect this?

If you worked from drawings only, and were charged with integrating all disciplines would you model the columns twice and run two models through the clash detection machine?

What setting would you put in? ‘Highlight where columns are not matching?’ But, surely that could not be called a ‘clash’?

That would be a non-match detection!

If there was a model earlier in the piece this would not have been an issue. Correct?

Who is responsible for sizing the column? The structural engineer’s you’d say.

So, it needs to be square.

But, the architect normally sets them out. He wants this one to be a rectangle!

I’ve seen numerous flowcharts describing how these things should work...

still not quite sure who owns C16?

Control is a bad word...

...Should not be associated with BIM - a reader argues my definition of the maxCME from yesterday.

It makes me think of The Fat Controller;

Remember The Fat Controller? In our old office, we had a picture of him on the wall.

I modelled the role of the BIM controller on him, aligned our company colours with the yellow west, though thankfully stopped short of making my guys wear top hats.

A cheerful chap, that I also associate with Ringo Starr, The Beatles drummer.

He voiced the first two series of the children's television series Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends. 

Starred in many movies too, but let’s not digress too much.

Due to Ringo’s influence or just endless repeats of the tapes, I have such confidence in The Fat Controller and his team, that I would happily put my BIM data in their custodianship to control.

I guess, Caretaker or Custodian would be titles agreeable to most critics of the BIM controller, minus the ‘control’ of course.

For me? Too PC, or at least too passive to reflect the role that needs to lead, guide as well as manage, set the rules of the game and carry the responsibility to shape project success.

This is a critical role within the process, I’ll keep pondering about what to call it.

How about: BIM Data Moderator?

Is it going to be CME or CME?

I like maxCME.

Just like I seem to be the only one bothered by the two, easily confused meanings of IFC within the AEC, it is unlikely that anyone will get overly excited about the two distinctively different explanations that could be behind another BIM related acronym: CME.

For some BIM practitioners CME stands for Common Model Environment, a place where integrated teams collaborate in a managed, digital environment. A platform, where multiD electronic data is (freely?) exchanged.

A virtual collaborative sandpit. Managed. As in the kindergarten sandpit.

I prefer the word ‘controlled’. My version of the environment is the: CME, Controlled Model Environment or even maxCME.

This may not be very PC to state, but I believe is much more likely to work.

If there is control, there are responsibilities. No control, no responsibilities.

No meaningful data either, due to the disclaimers that will likely accompany models playing in the friendly sandpit.

Going back to IFCs, that problem may disappear soon, document sets referred to as IFC (‘issues for construction’) are harder and harder to squeeze out of consultants, the fluffy ‘design intent’ tends to replace them.

Legally words like ‘intent’, and ‘for information only’ are more palatable then ‘for construction’, so, no wonder they are terminologies of choice.

Easy: No IFC (drawings) no confusion.

I am still left with the two CMEs.

The Constructor that was not meant to be...

When VICO picked up Constructor about 5 years ago, it elected to upscale the reasonably capable but also architect biased modelling software into a complicated construction suite.

Should have gone the other way...

Get rid of the architectural baggage Archicad was weighed down with, and make Constructor a stand alone, construction focused, modelling package. Sell it as a box.

Had it gone down that road (and who knows if the possibility existed at all?) – by now we’d probably have a decent modeller that offered sensible tools for the digitally minded construction coordinators, managers, planners and programmers.

Stairs that aren’t handicapped by silly 2D illustration principles.

Beams that blend or unblend with slabs depending on their types and materials;
Doors and windows that can exist without walls... and much more.

We’d probably have good 4 and 5D integration as well, clever logistics, nifty virtual cranes.

I discussed the need for a no-frills, robust construction modeller ages ago with a software developer/vendor. He was highly sceptical, citing two reasons for not agreeing with me, one that ALL construction based data is ultimately originated by architects and engineers and construction people are always the last to innovate, anyway.

I disagreed with both points but the fact that we still have no robust construction-modellers available proves the guy knew something about the industry.

Or, maybe not? Time will tell.

Model, model on my palm, can you tell me where am I?

Metal Mary is our navigation assistant, a cheesy name she got for a piece of electronics.

As most creatures of her sort, she is terribly patient and forgiving. I am yet to hear her yell because we took a wrong turn or refuse to do another ‘recalculating’ exercise.

Her job isn’t easy, as roads, ramps and roundabouts regularly get established and disestablished where we live. It is not unusual for us to be travelling through a blank screen or pretend to turn into a submarine for the reason of a new road or bridge appearing that Mary is yet to be acquainted with.

I wish my BIM models learned some of Mary’s skills.

For a start, to tell me where am I?

Say, I am navigating a model – looking at a particular junction in a middle of a large floor-plate, up on the X’th floor.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the model had the ability to show on the screen (ghost it?) what level I was on? Also, if I was looking through a vertical cut, what grids had I been truncating in the view?

The vertical referencing I can get around, but am yet to think of any usable work-around for grids having their heads cut off.

A wormlike object, that grows a head at whatever place I cut it, would work, I think.