BIM's Seven Deadly Sins

Abstract

This paper aims at exposing seven prevailing problems that have emerged in the uptake of Building Information Modelling (BIM) in design practice. The paper provides a reality check between an idealistic view on BIM and the way it is currently applied in daily use. In order to reflect on the issues at hand, the author draws from three years of doctoral research in multidisciplinary design collaboration, followed by more than two years experience as Design Technology director in a large scale architecture practice. In addition to the above, his current role as the chair of the BIM and IPD Steering Group of the Australian Institute of Architects and Consult Australia exposes the author to a broad range of cultural implications of BIM. The findings presented here illustrate that, despite major advances in the development of BIM, there are predominantly cultural roadblocks to its implementation in practice.

Rethinking the contractual context for Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the Australian built environment industry

“…However, it is also becoming a tool associated with the integrated delivery and management of project information across the entire building life cycle and across collaborating professions (Holzer, 2011) (US AIA, 2007).…”

“…Whilst 3D (graphic/spatial dimensions), 4D (time) and 5D (cost) are readily recognised, there is some uncertainty regarding subsequent dimensions. For example 6D has been identified for Facility Management (FM) or Environmental Sustainable Development (ESD), although these subsequent dimensions have no recognised formal application in industry or academically (Holzer, 2011).…”

Energy simulation for decision support in early architectural design

“…Since then, uptake has continued to rise as forecast, with BIM used most heavily by architects, more moderately by engineers and building owners, and rapidly approaching comparable levels of engagement amongst contractors (Steel, Drogemuller, & Toth, 2012;Young, et al, 2008). Yet despite having filtered into everyday practice, BIM is still often misconceived as a new and more effective version of traditional 2D CAD (Holzer, 2011). Furthermore, as the term is used broadly to describe a large and evolving range of AEC services, the definition of BIM varies greatly between individual practitioners and project briefs, giving rise to considerable ambiguity as to what it actually means in practice and the scope of activity that it covers (Holzer, 2011).…”

“…Yet despite having filtered into everyday practice, BIM is still often misconceived as a new and more effective version of traditional 2D CAD (Holzer, 2011). Furthermore, as the term is used broadly to describe a large and evolving range of AEC services, the definition of BIM varies greatly between individual practitioners and project briefs, giving rise to considerable ambiguity as to what it actually means in practice and the scope of activity that it covers (Holzer, 2011).…”

“…There is, however, growing industry-wide recognition that successful BIM, like any form of design collaboration, depends on two distinct, yet interrelated, prerequisites -technological integration and process integration Holzer, 2011;Senescu & Haymaker, 2009b;Watson, 2011). At the same time, there is little consensus concerning which of these two requirements should take precedence in characterising BIM, or to what extent.…”