[Editor's Note: The first version of this article neglected to mention session moderator Ed Goldberg, who did an outstanding job. My apologies for the oversight, which has now been corrected.]
The realities of using building information modeling (BIM) on a regular basis were the subject of several conference sessions today at the first day of this year's AEC Science and Technology Federal conference, running through Friday at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC.
A panel discussion on “The Industry Perspectives on BIM--Now and Into the Future” started out as modest vendor presentations on the current state of various AEC design products, but ended as a spirited discussion adeptly moderated by author and practicing architect Ed Goldberg on the realities of working in a BIM environment.
Robert Anderson of Nemetschek North America, representing VectorWorks Architecture, said FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is rampant in the industry concerning BIM, partially because the term is being used to describe two very different processes. The first is design automation, the use of 3D objects to model construction elements. The second is more generalized IT automation for AEC, which Anderson says is better defined as interoperability. Both forms of automation require a BIM product to produce objects, Anderson said; “3D geometry is not enough.”
Anderson says architectural design workflow has three major steps: Conceptualization, Construction, and Communication. Conceptualization is the realm of various multi-media products and pre-design tools; Construction is the realm of BIM tools, for designing the detailed building model; Communication is the realm of construction drawings and non-graphical information. BIM tools are not an all-encompassing solution, but one part of the workflow continuum.
BIM tools force users to re-think AEC communication processes, says Michael Hansen with AEC Infosystems, a reseller and consultant representing Graphisoft's ArchiCAD and related BIM products. “The greatest problem with communication is the illusion that it has been achieved,” Hansen said in paraphrasing an unnamed author.
BIM is moving AEC from data files to databases, notes Autodesk's John Sullivan. Using files to store drawings imposes an external structure that is relevant to the technology but not necessarily to the project. The best example is using layers to organize a drawing. BIM, by comparison, organizes the data more like the building it represents, as walls, doors, windows, etc. BIM uses an internal logic more in tune with reality. Drawings become a query to the BIM database, and layers lose their meaning as a organizational construct. Files = lines = layers, Sullivan says, and are better applied to on-site fabrication. BIM = chunks, Sullivan says; BIM represents a better design paradigm for the increasingly common construction practices of off-site fabrication and on-site assembly. Sullivan pointed the audience to the book Refabricating Architecture as an excellent guide to the future of both design technology and construction.
After the vendor presentations (the only panel at AEC-ST with vendors as speakers), Douglas Palladino of RTKL Architects shared about his firm's transition to BIM. The firm has offices on three continents, and is in the middle of a worldwide conversion to Autodesk Revit as their sole architectural design tool. The Washington, DC office is leading the way for the firm, Palladino said. It has gone from one pilot project 18 months ago to having all 30 architects in the office now using Revit for all new work. “Our teams are smaller, and our productivity is higher,” he said of working in Revit. “We have more time for other things that architects should do.”
The question and answer session that followed focused heavily on the “I” in BIM. “The relentless discipline of the data” has made our transition to BIM harder than the transition from pen and ink to CAD, noted an designer from a government agency. “Data structures are key.” Other audience members also questioned the notion that moving to BIM is easier than the move from the drafting board to CAD. “We have people that just don't get it and don't want to get it,” said one architect. Another audience member noted that some design firms standardizing on Revit are doing so with two-person teams of designer and librarian, recognizing the twin BIM functions of modeling and annotating.
Attending this session as AEC-ST's conference director made me wonder if there would be value in reviving an old industry tradition, the CAD Shootout. Perhaps a BIM shootout would require teams to share data with each other at various random times. The judging (if such a “competition” were to be adjudicated) could be based on such factors as interoperability, use of industry standard components, and suitability of the BIM data for downstream use.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow's keynote session, featuring architect William McDonough, noted advocate of sustainable construction named a “Hero of the Planet” by Time Magazine.
--RSN