It's Time to Get Rid of BIM.

" It's time to get rid of BIM "  - those are words that I bet you never thought you would read on a blog called BIM - for real.   But this concept is something that I feel very passionate about, that BIM is not needed in the AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and Construction) industries.

Before I elaborate, I should probably explain that I'm involved with project teams on both US coasts as well as across the US South and Mid-West. Because of this involvement I have found that each region and each project can be extremely different.  We have projects that are using tablets accessing data on "the cloud"; project coordination that leverages the benefits of clash detection during preconstruction; projects that combine 3D models and project management solutions for project scheduling ... you get the idea, real technology and information workflows. Of course, we also have projects where we need to create our own 3D models for these purposes as the sub-contractors or design teams did all their work in AutoCAD or with hand sketches.  That doesn't mean that these players are not part of the greater collaboration process, just that they are doing it differently based on their required deliverables, skillsets, budgets, overhead, client demands, etc..  As a result, we need to adjust the way we perform our services based on a wide variety of factors.

With the paragraph above, I successfully got rid of BIM.  Not the technology, not the process, not the model. I was able to get rid of the term and concept of BIM... because we don't need it.

A favorite description of BIM and one that you may have read in many technology and marketing articles is that BIM is a "disruptive process". Disruptive because it changes the way you do things to achieve your end results. But who wants to disrupt the way they produce a great product and make a comfortable living? Even I don't want to do that.  On the other hand, I do want to enhance the way I do my designs and deliver my projects. Technology and process improvements should be ENABLING and not disruptive! That's the foundation for why it's time to get rid of BIM from our lexicon of industry language. The process we currently describe as BIM is already understood to be an enhancement or requirement for doing our jobs. We are enhancing the way we deliver projects through process and technological improvements. That's not something that requires its own ill defined word, that's simply adapting to our current industry reality which is something most industries are doing today.

For further proof that we don't need BIM, ask yourself how you would you answer the following question:  "How do you do your business?"   You may describe everything from specs to CD's, from design to technology, from coordination to budgets, from presentations to marketing... but you could do it ALL without ever using the disruptive terminology of "BIM".

So lets stop using this term which can cause a general feeling of disruption or uncertainty of meaning each time it is used. If we are not describing a Building Information Model (a BIM - the most generic description of a model used for design and construction) then you are likely not communicating your point of view effectively.

Unless of course you are like me and arguing that you don't need to use the term BIM, then it's kind of mandatory. :-)

3D = ok

So this blog is a brief discussion on why it's great to receive 3D fab shops, especially if the engineer is using Revit or any other BIM tool. To start, one of the latest projects we have been working on used correct 0,0,0 reference points all the way across the board! Even our civil had the model in the right place! We had a great kickoff and coordination meeting, which helped and we tackled quite a few of the issues regarding,

What is our project's reference point?

What is true elevation vs. level elevation?

And how in the world do you model a giant sombrero? (this last one was for fun and the answer was with sweeps)

Here is where it got fun, our subcontractors were all using 3d in one form or another. Cue drum roll........model overlay!!

So forget the old way of maybe having an MEP model or trying to cram in a thorough clash detection using the fabricators model towards the end of the project. This time we had all pistons firing. And Brian and I had been dying to try this, thus, we loaded into Navis, the engineers model first (which we had worked through the clash detection on) then we loaded in the fabricators model.

Next words out of our mouths, "Holy buckets!" this is off here this is off there...etc. Also finally got a chance to use NavisWorks' "reverse" clash detection tool that let's you know when one model is not aligned to another by the defined tolerances! (I recommend the old F1 button to learn how to do this correctly but it helped us out immensely.)

I digress... The end result of this was that we found the fabricator had taken some "shorter runs" that worked out fine and saved the project money in length of ductwork runs and some that didn't because the engineer required a longer drop, certain friction for their flow rates, etc..

So ductwork got cut by about 23%. Reran the clash using the approved fab model and went from there.

I love collaboration.