BIM s Seven Deadly Sins

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins Dominik Holzer international journal of architectural computing issue 04, volume 09 463 BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins Dominik Ho...
6 downloads 0 Views 283KB Size
BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins Dominik Holzer

international journal of architectural computing

issue 04, volume 09 463

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins Dominik Holzer

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.

464

1. INTRODUCTION Deeply rooted in various areas of research and development in computational design over the past 20-30 years [1], BIM starts to become commonplace in everyday building practice [2]. Professionals from a diverse range of backgrounds in the building industry, such as architects, engineers, or contractors, have high expectations towards BIM for efficiency gains and for more integrated collaboration with their partners. As part of the industry’s transition from CAD to BIM, we currently witness a fundamental shift in the way building projects are conceived and delivered.This paper acknowledges the process change in the industry that is triggered through BIM, and it attempts to take a critical standpoint by analysing the prevailing misconceptions and problem areas the implementation of BIM encounters in practice. The ‘seven deadly sins’ as presented in this paper are preceded by various critical reflections on the uptake of computationally assisted design in practice [3], [4], [5], [6].The strongest alignment between the purpose of this paper and examples in previous literature can be found with the descriptions of CAAD’s seven deadly sins [4] as well as CAAD’s seven arguable virtues [7].This paper does not attempt to compare the sins or virtues of CAD with those of BIM; instead the issues exposed here represent problems specific to BIM implementation in current architectural practice. The accounts provided here are based on the following sources: • A three year, government funded research project (Delivering Digital Architecture in Australia) completed by the author as main researcher, forming the basis of his PhD on design collaboration. • A series of four public BIM forums (two of which facilitated by the author) with leading industry experts; resulting in the publication of a national report titled: BIM in Australia 2010 [8] • an industry survey undertaken with 12 Australian architecture firms, 18 engineering consultants (structural and mechanical) and 5 Australian contractors. • BIM clauses in about 20-25 project briefs that were reviewed by the author over the past year in his role as Design Technology Director of a large Australian architecture firm.

2. SEVEN SINS IN IMPLEMENTING BIM The seven sins described here are listed in no particular order. It is not claimed that sins related to the implementation of BIM are limited to the number of seven.Those sins discussed here represent some of the most common examples the author has experienced and witnessed in his practice work.The author acknowledges the specific geographical context (Australia) that provides the background to the issues alluded to in this

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

465

paper. In awareness of global trends related to BIM, the author is convinced that the sins listed here defy local boundaries and that they are likely to be found in other countries where BIM gets implemented.The sins commonly committed in the implementation of BIM will see variations over time as the industry uptake progresses and as BIM methods will take hold of wider parts of planning, design and operation of buildings.

2.1.Technocentricity – focus on software instead of design culture BIM is often misconceived as being a new version of what the industry associates with CAD and its uptake over the past two to three decades. Those who witnessed the transition from manual drafting processes to CAD about 20-25 years ago will have seen how CAD in architectural practice was predominantly used to replicate drafting and visualisation processes which previously were done manually. CAD helped designers to carry out these processes on the computer for higher speed, accuracy and for photo-realistic visualisation. For most users, technology was the driver to facilitate this change and the computer was the conduit for the change to happen.There are parallels in the transition from manual work to CAD and the move from CAD to BIM, but some fundamental differences also exist. One of those differences is that a technology-centric view on BIM (which is apparent in those practices who believe that implementing it is about implementing new software) will inevitably lead to fundamental problems in understanding BIM as a method for conceiving buildings in the first place. As stated by Randy Deutsch [9], a highly regarded BIM critic in the US, BIM processes do not simply replicate CAD processes more effectively using 3D software. BIM is about an entire process change that impacts nearly all activities related to the planning, delivery and operation of buildings on a social, a business and even a political level. Further, BIM allows users to engage the building supply chain from the inception stage to its operation and demolition in an unprecedented manner. Illustrated by Larry Downes [10] in his ‘Law of Disruption’ graph [Figure 1], the technological aspect of process change undergoes the most radical transformation over time. Moving to BIM necessitates profound changes in common work processes inter-organisationally as well as intra-organisationally. Changes related to staffing, training, project team configuration and project infrastructure impact previously established processes and they may even affect the entire business model of a practice. When working in BIM on projects, those using it need to define new responsibilities, and possibly even new roles, which include the setup of office BIM standards, the management BIM models, the creation of specific BIM model content for libraries and families, and protocols for the

466

Dominik Holzer

coordination of multi-disciplinary BIM models. On a project team (social) level, it is advisable to include at least one member who possesses good BIM model management skills to coordinate those contributing to the shared model. On a cultural and political level, when BIM gets introduced to a practice some staff will find it easier than others to embrace the new possibilities it has to offer. A practice’s leadership is well advised to consider those who will be taken out of their comfort zone and who will be anxious about the changes BIM may bring to their work. Project architects or engineers who traditionally were used to open up a CAD file to review and finalise changes will find it much more difficult to get direct access to the documentation output in the context of BIM models.  Figure 1: Larry Downes, Law of Disruption.

2.2. Ambiguity During the Australian industry forums on BIM (as mentioned in the introduction), architects, engineers and contractors agreed that one of the major hindering factors in the adoption of BIM in design practice is the high level of ambiguity about the range of services it constitutes [8]. Lacking a differentiated view on the value BIM adds to projects, clients are likely to be reluctant to compensate their consultants for BIM related services. BIM proponents continuously highlight the benefit it provides to designers, design consultants and contractors during all stages of design and beyond. At the same time, they appropriate many aspects of computational design that were initially not directly related to BIM, to better market the concept of BIM and its overarching capacity to inform the way we conceive, construct, and manage buildings. Design computation processes that help

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

467

architects and engineers to explore formal topologies, to resolve complex systems, and to rationalize geometry are increasingly being labeled with a BIM tag [11]. At the same time, saleable acronyms for simplifying and describing specific aspects of BIM become ever more widespread in the industry. Such acronyms include: 4D BIM for construction scheduling, 5D BIM for costing, 6D BIM for environmentally sustainable design and 7D BIM for as-built information that feeds into Facility Management. Less well-informed users may be tempted to associate BIM with everything interesting one could achieve in architecture with the help of computational design.This is not helped by the fact that the term “Building Information Modeling” is general in nature and it could be used to describe any activity that involves 3D architectural design.The industry lacks specific definitions of distinct BIM services as they are emerging in practice (with an associated spectrum of fees). BIM users experience an overall increase of the interfacing capability between multiple, previously segregated, areas of computational design. BIM’s potential for linking intelligent building information through various types of enquiry and during various stages of design should prompt users to define a spectrum of BIM related activities. If those who design and deliver BIM manage to catalogue and profile the range of services they offer, they allow their clients to understand the base deliverables, as well as the added value, of specific services in BIM. Figure 2 provides an overview of potential services that form part of a BIM Spectrum which the author is currently proposing to his design practice for consideration and selection.  Figure 2: Author, Illustrating 25 services that may form part of a practice’s BIM spectrum.

Another crucial aspect to establishing a firm’s distinct BIM profile, is the need to understand the transitions between the divergent, open-ended, and often erratic processes of design exploration, the more convergent processes of assembling and sharing intelligent geometrical objects in 3D,

468

Dominik Holzer

and the creation of shop-drawings for construction and beyond.The identification and implementation of such ‘digital ecologies’ [Figure 3] can assist designers and their teams to develop a specific design signature.When considering software use that feeds into digital ecologies, architects first map out the multi-facetted flow of information related to their design thinking, their planning and documentation processes, and their information output to other stakeholders.

 Figure 3: A typical digital software ecology based on a commercial tower project

With a clear understanding of the design deliverables, the most appropriate range of software to assist with them, and the interoperability between the various tools applied, BIMs becomes a hub for information exchange during the planning phase of a project and beyond. Mapping out digital ecologies helps designers and consultants to move with confidence between dedicated (but sometimes narrowly focused) design tasks, and those processes that promise to strengthen design delivery across the whole project team.

2.3. Elision One diagram in particular has been central to propagating the benefits and effects of BIM in the building industry. It is a graph created published by the American Institute of Architects via one of their members, HOK’s CEO Patrick MacLeamy [12]. In the graph, MacLeamy plots effort/effect against. time to then illustrate the difference of the effort/effect graph over time in a pre and post BIM scenario. One curve shows the main effort in pre-BIM times mainly within the advanced design stages and procurement.With the use of BIM that curve is shifted to the left towards the earlier design stages, where changes are easier, and less costly, to accommodate.The message is clear and the diagram has enjoyed extensive exposure both in publications, as well as in numerous BIM presentations, adding to its cultural significance over the past five years. It is used as reference to promote the usefulness of

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

469

BIM to a variety of stakeholders such as architects, engineers, project managers and BIM software vendors. Overall, the graph [Figure 4] is a positive contribution to the propagation of BIM in the industry as it communicates in very basic terms what can be achieved through BIM and it highlights the inefficiencies of preBIM work methods. It is assumed in this paper that MacLeamy’s goal was to achieve the above. MacLeamy could not foresee or influence the dynamic the diagram has taken since its publication, fostered by those who merely use it to highlight the benefits of BIM without scrutinising its content.With several years gone by since the graph was first published in 2005, BIM uptake in the industry has advanced significantly.  Figure 4: Patrick MacLeamy, AIA/HOK, Effort/Effect over time. BIM vs. traditional approach.

When considering the MacLeamy diagram in retrospect and in more detail, it seems to present processes in the uptake of BIM in an overly simplistic manner. Several researchers have already pointed out deficiencies of the diagram such as changes through BIM on ‘Operation’ [13], the actual distribution of the ‘Effort/Effect’ curve [14] or the lack of critical thought related to its impact on design quality [15]. Operational aspects and a variation of the distribution of the effort/effect curve are also highlighted in Figure 5, which presents an effort/effect curve based on the experience of the Australian architecture firm Rice Daubney. In his original graph, MacLeamy shifts the curve denoting main investment or effort to the left, but he does not consider that, by doing so, the project duration beyond procurement is likely to diminish.This occurs due to added benefits during construction where the contractor can rely on a better integrated documentation set with clashes resolved prior to going on site. Upon examination of the graph, questions emerge as to how far MacLeamy bases the graduation of its curves merely on informal observations at work, or on any quantifiable data from within design

470

Dominik Holzer

practice. In case of the former, the significance of the diagram is likely to be overstated by its users. In the case of the latter one should question the validity of that data used to produce it. Industry feedback exposes that practitioners are likely to experience an effort curve with a less abrupt finish than shown by MacLeamy and with a slight increase at the start of each project phase [14]. Architects and their consultants have to gear up much earlier in conceptual design. Darren Tims from Rice Daubney presents this as a positive development as he sees it as ultimately leading to better design.Tims argues that the uncertainties related to the adoption of BIM force consultants to take on more risk from a business perspective.

 Figure 5: Darren Tims of Rice Daubney: Interpretation of the MacLeamy graph based on real life data.

The MacLeamy graph is indifferent regarding who benefits from, or pays for, the change in effort achieved through BIM. If project teams are able to integrate construction knowledge into design, who is doing the work, and who benefits most from it? In depth quantitative studies [16], [17] with design practitioners, consultants, contractors and owner/operators hint in the direction that the beneficiaries are mainly the clients and contractors. On the other hand, it is mainly the architects and the mechanical engineers who increasingly have to take over coordination that would usually be taken on by the contractors as well as sub-contractors. As a simple rule, the smarter the BIM (or the assembly of several BIMs), the more useful information it will contain specific to each of its contributors. In order to achieve a high level of usefulness, that information needs to be managed, coordinated and associated with individual objects in the BIM.The level of development of a highly informed BIM will, by nature, depend on input from various stakeholders. An open dialogue is required where those stakeholders resolve what kind of information the BIM should contain and who is responsible for adding it (and for setting up intelligent filters for sorting it). Any effort in doing so needs to be communicated upfront between the client, the contractor, and the consultants in order to

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

471

secure appropriate financial compensation.This is the only way a valid effort/effect curve can be established for each contributing party.

2.4. Hypocrisy – the IPD excuse BIM by itself makes little sense in design practice. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is hailed as BIM’s twin sister as it associates project procurement and a predefined partnership among collaborators with the appropriation of design data through BIM [18]. IPD allows us to tap into the potential BIM has to offer, based on procurement and collaboration principles that foster teamwork rather than litigation. However, IPD is barely applied to projects yet.The effort needed to achieve pure IPD is prohibitive to the point that the building industry globally is yet to see a mainstream adoption by project teams in practice. Paradoxically, the mention of IPD has currently either become an excuse to cover for the shortcomings of BIM or it is used as buzz-word by teams who claim to ‘do’ IPD simply because they share their model information using coordination software such as NavisworksTM or SolibriTM.To this point, the discourse about IPD in practice has predominantly been led by industry bodies and software vendors. They try to sell an idea that in theory makes sense, but hits substantial roadblocks in practice. Such an idealistic introduction suffers from a lack of critical scrutiny that does justice to IPD’s cultural significance. IPD requires the upfront resolution of cultural, political, legal and business related aspects of architectural design and delivery in order to pave the way for its implementation. From a theoretical perspective, the idea of an integrated Building Information Model is valid.The concept of BIM in general considers the entire building supply chain (from a management, ecology, and a stakeholder perspective) and the entire building lifecycle (from a time and sustainability perspective).The reason why BIM by itself makes limited sense in practice is the clash between well established ways of procuring building projects (predominantly considering procurement through competitive tendering), and the contractual/collaboration specific agreements required to derive real benefits from BIM. Users can only get substantial value out of BIM if they share information related to a project’s delivery across the entire project team as early as possible. Comparing this aspiration with the typical means by which project teams are organised at present, a dilemma becomes evident.The building industry operates predominantly within the system of design-bid-build, where the mentality of involved parties is in many ways risk averse, focused on individual participants’ benefits, and ultimately litigious in nature. Putting the project and the team before one’s own interests is a concept that may not appeal to everyone in an industry where the players traditionally operate with a strong focus on their own organisation. IPD is not simply about avoiding conflicts, but is a collaboration-based framework

472

Dominik Holzer

that allows teams to resolve conflicts amicably and in a short matter of time, once they arise In order to derive true value out of BIM through IPD, a mindset is required, where collaborating partners put stronger emphasis on the project and the intra-organisational team – instead of the immediate interests of their own organisation.This process is complicated by the fact that members constituting the project team are often not yet selected at the start, where they would have the greatest impact on the project. Having others on board in decision making processes during the early design stages may be hard to accept for architects, who are often skeptical of the value of contractor involvement at the outset.Teams who take IPD seriously will first engage in profound discussions about intellectual property, professional indemnity (and related insurances), collaboration culture, model audit trails, and the sharing of risk among various project partners including the client. IPD projects therefore require substantial buy-in from clients who ultimately carry the risk for deciding on the procurement type of their projects and who are the most vulnerable party in the early days of IPD style collaboration.

2.5. Delusion – asking for 2D while requiring 3D work Despite the continuous development and industry uptake of BIM over the past 8-10 years, the ultimate deliverables for designers still remain the submission of 2D documentation.While the end product has stayed the same, the means of achieving it have changed drastically. A major part of the author’s responsibility as Design Technology director at a large scale architecture firm is to review BIM deliverables in project briefs and ‘Request for Proposal’ documents. In doing so, the author has been exposed to approximately 25 of such documents over the past year. One aspect that most of those documents have in common is that clients ask for 2D documentation deliverables only, while demanding BIM to be implemented at the same time for the coordination of building information. While the fees remain based on the provision of 2D documents, the focus on 2D is misleading. It carries with it a range of hidden deliverables and additional work by consultants.They often need to coordinate their 3D BIM work to a level far exceeding their traditional 2D deliverables, in order to achieve a set of high-quality 2D documents. Architects think and develop their ideas spatially; they are using 2D plans/sections as ‘temporary’ abstractions of their ideas in order to simplify their concepts and communicate them to other design partners and the builder.We currently experience a paradox episode in the use of BIM: Consultants still need to abstract the ‘smart 3D assemblies’ from coordinated BIM models into 2D representations in order to communicate design intent. In addition, we cannot rely on actual 3D construction information when communicating with builders, as they base their work on

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

473

‘traditional’ 2D plans and sections. A good portion of relevant building information never gets modeled when considering a level of detail in the magnitude of 1:20 and below. At that scale communication of intent can easier be handled in 2D compared to the effort that would be required to produce the same level of information in 3D and in consideration of file-size and current computing power to manipulate/visualise a large number of detailed 3D information. Overall, the industry seems to accept the 3D to 2D abstraction method. Apart from a small number of (often experimental) examples [19], [20] automated manufacture and a direct transition from BIM to built artifact is not commonplace as mainstream means of delivery. Consultant agreements only refer to 2D documents as the primary deliverables for tender and construction submission.This approach is regularly combined with clauses prompting all consultants to use BIM software for team-internal coordination purposes only, excluding the use of BIM for contractor or client coordination. Based on requests in project briefs, collaborating consultants typically agree to a minimum level of detail required to achieve 2D documentation at the outset of a project.The deeper a collaborating team moves into the project, the less likely they are able to ignore the need to fully resolve coordination issues in 3D.The entire team is relying on the accuracy and current status of each other’s model.The danger related to this scenario is that cross-referencing milestone 2D drawings occurs less frequently in BIM and that documentation sets quickly become outdated. Problems arise when clients, project managers or even contractors demand 2D output from BIM models for tenders to be on par with construction issue status.The level of detail required for coordinating the positioning and visualisation of all fixtures and mechanical units in their final locations can protract the documentation process substantially.With a requirement for architects to show consultants’ design data as part of their 2D documents (e.g. in the Reflected Ceiling Plans) they need to certify that their drawings are fully coordinated. In most cases this can only efficiently be achieved by coordinating the BIM data from all relevant stakeholders and by resolving clashes as they occur in 3D. Ultimately, sound 2D deliverables based on BIM can only be achieved through detailed 3D coordination. No matter what the contract says, there is still client and inter-consultant expectations about what a BIM model should offer. Designers and consultants can get caught up by ill-defined or misinterpreted deliverables and they need to protect their interests by rethinking how to itemise their fee proposals.Those implementing BIM currently see a new type of document, the ‘Project Execution Plan’ [21], emerging in the building industry that addresses the challenges mentioned above and that complements contractual agreements. It aims at clarifying the responsibilities and accountabilities in the delivery of BIM content for each contributing party for each project stage. In addition to providing a procedural guideline for the exchange of BIM related project

474

Dominik Holzer

information, Project Execution Plans also include specific role descriptions and duties for individual model managers and the overall model coordinator. Further, Project Execution Plans are used to communicate to the contractors and clients what will be achieved / delivered through BIM, based on the specific intent and remuneration dealt with in the contract.

2.6. Diffidence – denying the need for process change When adopting BIM, the question arises how high a practice should aim in subscribing to new and innovative methods facilitated by BIM. How should one stage a transition from established (mostly CAD based) processes and protocols to becoming mature and proficient users (or even leaders) of BIM methods? The effects of BIM on any established work methods are disruptive by nature.The process change intrinsic to BIM implementation is substantial, and it requires a venturous mindset plus the willingness to take risks by a practice’s leadership in order to succeed. A step by step approach with small increments will in many ways not suffice to enable true change. Some of the requirements for change when implementing BIM are: • substantial up-front cost for purchasing BIM software licenses. • substantial up-front cost upgrading computer hardware and network capability. • substantial up-front cost for training staff. Some less obvious (but necessary) requirements include the: • setup of internal BIM standards (most likely little related to existing CAD standards). • cultivation of a solid BIM content library (substantial effort/cost to establish). • recruitment of BIM knowledgeable staff (and laying off staff who will not or cannot commit). These efforts provide a practice with a foundation for the sound implementation of BIM on projects and they will allow the practice to respond to expectations by clients, consultants and contractors. Still, there is more a practice needs to do. Delivering 2D documentation based on 3D models is only one element within an entire range of possible services related to BIM. Recent project briefs by clients and contractors show that deliverables for architects (and others) are undergoing major changes in the current market place. If the provision of high quality documentation (and in some cases supervision on site) was the end-goal in a consultant’s traditional deliverables, they currently see an entire new spectrum of services requested by clients. 3D Massing, Solar Studies, Model Coordination, Clash Detection, BIM Management,Virtual Walk-Throughs, Occupants’ Training, Construction Scheduling, and Facilities Management are just a few examples. Most of these services have little to no precedence compared to the services architects and engineers are used to providing. Further, clients seem to expect their consultants to provide them for no

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

475

additional fee. A first reaction for consultants who are caught up in this scenario may therefore be to dismiss the unfamiliar and focus on their firm’s ‘core capabilities’. In 2010 the author conducted an industry study for his design practice where BIM leaders of about 40 Australian architecture, engineering and construction firms were interviewed.The study revealed that a majority of those interviewed had been engaged with BIM for more than two years.The study further illustrated challenges for BIM enabled practices to complement their implementation efforts with a specific BIM profile that reflects their in-house skill level to distinguish them from others. Respondents highlighted that designers and their consultants need to become smart about how they engage BIM on a variety of design, delivery and operation/maintenance related processes.This can occur in parallel to building up a firm’s core modelling capability. Parts of the process change through BIM are achieved by making decisions earlier on in the design process. Designers need to agree how to advance design and documentation with stronger involvement of other collaborators such as the engineers, the QS or the contractors. It is therefore important to establish a new dialogue and provide decision makers with direct access to the BIM model (even though they may not wish to manipulate the model themselves). This is an important step in order to make decision makers on projects understand that changes to the documentation output cannot always be accommodated with the same immediacy as with 2D documentation; modeling in BIM relies on a more intricate set of dependencies.

2.7. Monodisciplinarity – design exploration in professional silos Current BIM tools still barely support early design collaboration across various disciplines.The predominant part of BIM research and development addresses intra-disciplinary concerns as well as object model coordination across disciplines in the advanced design stages. Considering the type of work currently supported by the main BIM software platform, users witness a strong push by software providers to create all-round tools that can assist designers in their creative processes from early conceptual design all the way to the delivery of projects. Identified as a shortcoming in BIM [22], mass modelling and conceptual design has seen particular progress over the past years with numerous tools being developed that allow users to overlay and interface virtual concept models with basic building performance feedback.

476

Dominik Holzer

 Figure 6: AIA California Council, comparing project phases between traditional and integrated delivery.

In the light of the above, the California Council of the American Institute of Architects addresses the interfacing potential we see as part of Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).They changed the definition of their traditional early design stages (pre-Design, Schematic Design and Design Development) into ‘Conceptualization’ Criteria Desigin and Detailed Design, [Figure 6]. In particular the mention of ‘Criteria Design’ offers a view into a future where collaborators use BIM models to quickly test and evaluate various design options across disciplines.The AIA states [18]: “During this period, different options are evaluated and tested. In a project using Building Information Modeling, the model can be used to test “what if” scenarios and determine what the team will accomplish.” Architects typically assume that their capability to explore in early stage design is constrained by consultants who only want to model and analyse as few options as possible. This attitude may provide a reason for designers to be suspicious about collaborating through BIM early on.Then again, it is barely possible to encounter software solutions suited to facilitate decision making across collaborating disciplines who wish to quickly evaluate multiple design options, infused by (close to) real time performance feedback. BIM models containing detailed descriptions of building objects are in most cases too ‘information-rich’ to become useful during criteria design, where constant changes occur. Designers, consultants and the contractor operate in an asynchronous manner.There is usually a time-lag between design changes proposed by the architect, the response from the engineers who run their analysis and the interpretation of the design information by the contractor. Due to traditional project setup, consultants and contractors are often excluded from early stage decision making.They are brought on board of the design team in the more advanced stages of planning.The increasing availability of ubiquitous processing power through cloud computing is likely to allow consultants and contractors to speed up delivery and to diminish the lag between design and performance checks.

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

477

Collaborators on design projects require computational frameworks that allow for a more instant transition between conceptual design and analysis models (such as those facilitated through the cloud) while including easily comprehensible visualisation capabilities for decision support. Such frameworks would alleviate the burden of remodeling and setting up separate simulation runs by consultants. In order to overcome the different notations and profession-specific geometry definitions, such frameworks would also need to include smart filters that allow a range of diverse simulation runs to access different semantic representations of the same geometric entities.

3. CONCLUSIONS The development of BIM is making strong progress, driven by its increasing uptake in the industry.With BIM capabilities becoming broader, BIM users witness the challenges associated with its implementation becoming broader as well.The seven sins of BIM implementation, as listed in this paper, can present significant impediments in its uptake. At the same time, none of the sins are insurmountable. Few of them (if any) are rooted in misconceptions on a technological side. In many cases, technological advances and the proliferation of software have driven the uptake of BIM in architectural practice rather than a discourse about its cultural implications. Most sins described here occur due to the incapacity or the unwillingness of practitioners in design and construction to swiftly adopt the advantages BIM has to offer due to cultural reasons.The building industry is more likely to overcome this problem by increasing the dialogue with those involved in delivering BIM projects and by focusing on the cultural (and political) impediments that hold them back. If academic research has momentarily taken a backseat while practice has taken the lead in pushing BIM on a technical level, we may well witness academia re-engaging the BIM debate on a broader, cultural level. Such feedback from academia may prove pivotal for streamlining the social and process-driven BIM activities designers, their consultants and the contractors engage in. Architects, their consultants and contractors who use BIM will continue to discover and debate more such sins. Ultimately, they will more likely succeed in managing the challenges ahead of them if they engage in close collaboration between academic and practice based research.

Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the support received by BVN Architecture, the Spatial Information Architecture Lab at RMIT University Melbourne, and Darren Tims at Rice Daubney.

478

Dominik Holzer

References 1. Mark, E. Gross, M. and Goldschmidt, G., A Perspective on Computer Aided Design after Four Decades, Architecture in Computro [26th eCAADe Conference Proceedings], Antwerpen, 2008. 2. Mitchell, B.,Thinking in BIM, Architectural Transformations via BIM, a+u, A+U Publishing,Tokyo, 2009. 3. Akin, O. and Anadol, Z.,What’s wrong with CAD?, 4th International Symposium on Systems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics, Baden-Baden, 1993. 4. Maver,T.W., CAAD’s Seven Deadly Sins, CAAD Future Proceedings, Singapore, 1995. 5. Gero, J. S., Advances in IT for building design, in: M Anson, J. Ko and E. Lam (eds), Advances in Building Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2002. 6. Kvan,T.The dual heritage of CAAD research, International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol.2, iss.1, 2004. 7. Koutamanis, A., CAAD’s seven arguable virtues, International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol.2, iss.1, 2004. 8. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia and Autodesk, BIM in Australia 2010, http://www.architecture.com.au/i-cms?page=1.13262.13289.13527.14980, [09-11-2011]. 9. Deutsch, R., BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, AIA, 2011. 10. Downes, L., The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age, Basic Books, 2009. 11. Architectural Transformations via BIM, ed. By Yoshida, N., A+U Publishing,Tokyo, 2009. 12. MacLeamy, P., Project Effort and Impact, http://www.buildingsmartsd.org/ [19-92011]. 13. Bazjanac,V. Understanding the BIM in NBIMS, Building Technologies Department, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, 2008. 14. Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., and Froese,T. Building information modelling demystified: does it make business sense to adopt BIM?, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,Vol. 2 Iss: 3, 2009. 15. Davies, D.,The MacLeamy Curve, The blog of nz Architecture, http://www.nzarchitecture.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/15/macleamy/ [11-112011]. 16. Gallaher, M. P., O’Connor, A. C., Dettbarn Jr. J. L., and Gilday, L.T., Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2004 17. McGraw Hill, The Business Value of BIM: Getting BIM to the Bottom Line, 2009, http://www.bim.construction.com/research/ [11-11-2011]. 18. AIA, A Working Definition – Integrated Project Delivery, McGraw Hill – ENR Regional Publications, Sacramento, 2007. 19. Kieran, S. and Timberlake, J., Cellophane House, KieranTimberlake Publishers, Philadelphia, 2011. 20. FACIT, http://www.facit-homes.com/, [19-9-2011]. 21. Penn State University, BIM Execution Planning, http://bim.psu.edu/, [19-9-2011]. 22. Holzer, D., Optioneering in Collaborative Design Practice, International Journal of Architectural Computing, vol.8, iss.2, 2010

BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

479

Dominik Holzer AEC Connect 1/36 Berkeley St., 3053 Carlton,VIC, Australia [email protected]

480

Dominik Holzer

Suggest Documents