14
news my view Karl Elliott
Clague’s Karl Elliott considers the role of BIM as he advocates a change to the way buildings are procured
We are living in times when we are ever more demanding of information-rich experiences. And the fact that a gadget in the palm of our hand that can deliver this information is undoubtedly appealing. Technology is clearly a force for
change – if not always a positive one, then certainly an unavoidable one. The reality of this evolution in technology has been to reshape aspects of our every- day living and, in turn, re-shape our industries, from mining to aviation and food production, all with the promise of convenience and efficiency. We strive to make ourselves more and more competi- tive and the push has been a global one. Of all the industries, construction is
undoubtedly the largest and, perhaps, the most complex and demanding on people and resources. It is surprising that change in the UK construction industry has been such a long time coming despite there having been a number of catalysts for this change – including the Egan and Latham reports which laid bare a cata- logue of failings. So, here we are: Building Information
Modelling – or “BIM” for those in the know – as the Government finally got its act together and mandated that publicly- funded projects costing over £6 million must be driven by BIM by 2016. It seems a long time since the first 3D CAD software was available back in the 1980s; however, the technology was simply not a commercially-viable proposition and it has taken 30 years for it to catch up. But, from the start, there seems to have
been a fundamental misunderstanding that BIM is 3D modelling and this has, in the large part, been driven by the software companies pushing their all-in- one BIM solutions. In short, the software companies have been allowed to hijack
the definition. It is becoming more apparent that there is a great deal of regret in the industry that the term BIM is misleading and that, maybe, Project Information Management would have been a more appropriate label. So, with the process of project
collaboration and data management on the one hand and the promise of 3D CAD applications, that it is claimed will do the job for us, on the other hand, has the promise of something new simply overwhelmed our common senses? You might be forgiven for thinking
that BIM is overloaded with abbreviations that only make its comprehension unbearable for those trying to grasp its key concepts. You might also be forgiven for thinking that those people on the ground who are actually building these projects are too far removed from the processes that go on and that real collaboration is more often than not just a pipedream. After all, we want to be able to connect with the specialists and the
craftsman so that their knowledge becomes a tangible part of the end product. But this isn't really possible unless the rules that govern their engagement are such that they have some incentive to be fully involved early on. We also live in a world where the client
is key and when the client is being dictated by capital instead of whole-life cycle costs, BIM might at first appear as an unnecessary complication to an already-expensive process that maybe they could do without. Equally, there doesn't seem to be any real ‘buy-in’ from the people that matter. But is this all just gripe from an industry that doesn't want to be told? The fundamental change that has
come about through the use of technology is one where we are moving away from a traditional 2D output to data-rich 3D models. As simple as this sounds, in some quarters there is fear that this is a shift away from drawing and an assault on artistic licence. But can the architectural profession Continued overleaf...
www.architectsdatafile.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92