RTC 2012: Principal's Stream

I was at the launch of Revit at Harvard University in Spring, 2000, but I'm not a Revit user. I've opened the software a few times, and I understand its underlying principles. This is to explain that the sessions I chose at Revit Technology Conference: mostly ones of a management bent, such as the Principal's Stream featured today.

The start of the first session "BIM Management -- A Strategic Approach" is delayed, as the room is overpacked by attendees who didn't register for the class. Tsk, tsk. The dividing wall to the next room is being opened. Rodd Perey of Architectus BIM Consulting is making small talk with us keeners in the front row, as he waits to start.  "Revit basics are no longer so much of interest anymore; the whole area of BIM management is now of greater interest," he tells us.

But first, a word from our sponsor. All of the sponsors are given ten minutes to talk about themselves. Before the keynote, for instance, we had spiels from Autodesk and Oce, and now we get to hear from Bates | Cosgrave, accounting firm.

Mr Perey starts off by stating that very few projects are realizing the benefits that would be possible, because expectations and scepticism are both low. For instance, clash detection is common, but BiM deliverables are not identified. Roles and responsibilities are not identified in contracts. The lack of performance metrics means that the benefits of BIM are not known.

He tells us about the BIM Management Plan Template, Project Execution Planning Guide, Australia's National Guideline for Digital Modeling [PDF], and so on. He says a pre-project planning group could probably double the areas in which BIM is useful during a workshop session. 

Next up, we have Dominik Holzer of AEC Connect listing for us BIM's Seven Deadly Sins. Actually, the "seven" is arbitrary; he figures there are between seven and seven hundred sins in using BIM. And here we go...

1. Technocentricity -- the sin in thinking that technology solves all problems.

2. Ambiguity -- the sin of misunderstanding BIM, and so not agreeing on what BIM deliverables are.

3. Elision -- the sin of assuming that the MacLeamy Curve is accurate (which states that more information earlier results in a better outcome).

4. Hypocrisy -- the sin of using the IPD as a buzzword (integrated project delivery), which barely has any update in the industry.

5. Delusion -- the sin of asking for 2D but expecting to get 3D, 4D, 5D, and more.

6. Diffidence -- the sin of lack of understanding by leaders in how BIM actually works, while BIM teams fail to involve leaders in their work.

7. Monodisciplinearity -- the sin of keeping disciplines in silos.

The reasons we sin, he tells us, is because of cultural and political reasons -- not technological.

 Lunch time!

 

 

Comments

[Dominik Holzer]

Thank you for the summary Ralph;

I just want clarify in regard to 'sin 3' that I do believe that MacLeamy is right in arguing that better integration of information earlier is likely to result in less effort later. My criticism points towards what the MacLeamy curve doesn't tell us (hence Elision) and about the lack of critical thought by those who continue to use it in their presentations.