Why BIM is Still Bankrupting Your Firm
Back in 2012 I updated a classic BIM graphic to show how BIM can bankrupt your firm. You can argue about the specific curves, but the essence is true. Here’s the original image showing how BIM shifts when the bulk of an architect’s time is spent:
My updated graphic describes firms that panic, reverting to a CAD mindset after starting with BIM methodologies. As is obvious from the image below, this is a bad idea:
While these two graphics make a clear case for sticking with BIM, and for describing the differences between CAD and BIM workflows, they are misleading. As such people view these images and notice that it doesn’t align with their experience. BIM doesn’t save that much time. CAD isn’t that bad. There’s a reason for that. We are looking at idealized curves. The BIM curve hides the truth that BIM never actually looks like that. It’s simplified for marketing. It’s devised to tell a simple truth: with BIM you spend more time on design and less on documentation. But of course selling the idea and living the idea are two different things. There are actually two variants of this graph we need to look at: BIM without templates and BIM with templates. Here’s what BIM looks like without a good template:BIM without a template feels very familiar. Just like CAD, there is still a mountain of work to do during the documentation phase. This is actually one of the reasons why panic sets in. People implicitly understand the work shift represented by the original idealized BIM graph and start freaking out when they see the mountain of time ahead of them in real life. The bump is scary as it reminds them of CAD and how much work that involves. Instead of trusting the work flow, they panic and everything falls apart. If you actually do the math (or use Archicad’s ability to display the area of a fill) and compare the area under each curve (which is a proxy for total time spent on a project), BIM without a template is still more efficient than 2D CAD, though of course more time consuming than the idealized BIM that the marketers are selling us on. Even if we just work this way, as long as we accept the shift of work isn’t as great as we were sold, BIM is still better and more efficient-and this is discounting all the other benefits of BIM.
Working with BIM in this manner of course is stupid. It’s something we all have to deal with when we start using Archicad or REVIT or another competitor, but we must quickly move beyond this phase. To effectively work in BIM, the secret to success is a strong template. And templates take time. What do I mean by a template? I mean anything and everything that is standard across projects: title blocks, page layouts, standard details, organization methods, graphics, generic data, typical construction elements, IFC schemes… As architects we reuse a lot of data from project to project. If we don’t, we’re either foolish or working for amazingly specialized clients. And let me comment on the thought that just popped into your head: no, your clients aren’t the ones I’m talking about. They aren’t that unique.
Templates are the starting point for a project. The better your template it is, whether because it has a ton of information embedded in it or because it allows you to work quickly in a clean environment, the more time you’ll save on a project. Here’s what BIM looks like with a good template:
BIM with a template is faster than how BIM is marketed to us. But there’s a catch of course. It’s faster during the life of the project, but I had to extend the graph to talk about time before the project. That time is significant and scary. As mentioned earlier, if you calculate the area under each curve, you’ll get the total time for each method. Of course this is all conceptual, but if you agree that the graphs feel right, then the numbers behind them are of just as much value. Let’s assume CAD = 100% time. How do the other curves compare?
- CAD = 100% baseline time
- BIM without templates = 90% of baseline time
- Idealized BIM = 70% of baseline time
- BIM with templates = 50% of baseline time
- Template creation = 33% of baseline time
- Our old panic curve = 150% of baseline time
What does this tell us? Unless you are dedicated to BIM, you’re never going to see the benefit from a time standpoint. And if BIM isn’t saving you time, you aren’t freeing up hours to either provide more services or do more projects. The numbers are interesting: BIM without templates (90%) and BIM with templates but only used on one project (83%) are very similar. And both numbers are above the idealized BIM (70%). So both feel like the marketers have been lying to us. Do you really want to upend your entire business model for a ten or twenty percent speed improvement? Not if it takes you a year of lost time to reach that (because of course all these numbers are worse when you are also brand new to a workflow). Each is an improvement on the old ways, but it’s not significant enough to feel it. All are traps. Add in the panic curve and BIM starts to feel like a conspiracy.
However if you take templates seriously, if you support all the prep work (training, software upgrades, research, templates…) then amazing things happen. As we BIM people like to think in multiple dimensions, it’s important to look at this graph as part of a continuum. It is not one project, but many. And templating is not a do once exercise. It is something that needs cultivation and maintenance. For all the graphs without templates, a series of projects look just like the same curve over and over and over again. But templates are different. If you look at a series of projects adhering to the same template, the results change over time:
Templates need continual work. In the timeline above, I’m showing a small, but constant amount of time dedicated to improving the template between each project. The goal of this continual work is to constantly move work from the project to the template. Each time you do a project, return to and improve your template. The result is that the next project takes less time. If for every hour you spend on your template you can cut an hour out of a project, you are winning. Big time. Each time you shave off a little time from the previous project and reinvest that time into the template, you are reaping exponential benefits. The time you spend on improving the template is beneficial to ALL SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS.
I’m estimating that a good template takes about one third of the time of a real project to develop. It could be more or less. It doesn’t matter. All the math still works. But there’s also a way to make that time vanish. I have made my Archicad template available for everyone. It’s geared towards the residential market in the USA, but it’s easily adaptable and usable anywhere by anyone for any type of project. Whether you take mine for free, toss a few dollars my way, or buy another template, there are resources available to you to shrink that 33% number to near zero. The argument isn’t should or shouldn’t you use a template with BIM. It’s whose are you going to use? Yours or one provided to you by an expert template developer? If you don’t want to make your own template, you should be using one developed by someone else. I of course only use Archicad, but these numbers work for any software. If you use REVIT, find a template. Or make one. And if you have one, share it. It is the hidden costs of templates (either making them or working without them) that limits the value proposition of BIM. It’s almost 2016. No more BIM without templates.
My Life with BIM
All these graphs describe how our lives have changed since the AEC industry truly became computer based. As the time it takes to complete a project changes, you need to think about how your fee structure adapts. Do you charge more an hour? Do you make less per project? Do you offer more services? Do you do more projects a year? Or do you spend more time relaxing with your family? And how do you pay for template time? Is that semi-frequent templating work built into the front end of your projects? Do you do project initiation work that actually benefits all other projects? Or do you raise your rates by a certain percentage to cover that unbillable time?
If you find yourself doing the same work over and over again, move it to the template. If you find parts of your job dull, move it to the template. If you find some aspect of your work is slowing you down, move it to the template.
If your life with BIM doesn’t look like any of these graphs, why? What are you seeing? My experience correlates with the BIM + Template curve. And I’ve talked with so many people in all the curves. So whether or not the exact slopes and peaks are correct, I’m very confident of the underlying truth. If you use Archicad, you need to download my template. You have no excuse not to. Subscribe to my blog to read more about the tricky world of being an Architect in the 21st century: Shoegnome on Facebook, Twitter, and RSS feed.
Darren Bell
Templates and office procedures save hours of repetition no doubt. Getting everyone in an office to use the templates along with tried and proven efficient procedures rather than reverting to a previous example is also part of the battle.
At the same time, the BIM manager has to be flexible and open minded enough to agree that they can’t know everything and so must regularly review the templates based on what the practice is actually doing.
Jared Banks
Absolutely! There’s definitely other graphs and articles to be made that describe the benefit of flexible templates and open-mindedness. Just because all projects need templates does not mean all templates need to be built the same way-or function the same way.
Ahmed Gad
Thank you for that great report.
Dana K. Smith, FAIA
How sad we are still at the point where each office has to develop their own templates, what a waste of time across the entire industry. Add to that the fact that most design templates are not used as you transition to construction or FM. When will we start working as a team? Unique designs do not come from templates uniquely designed. Good design still comes from good designers. Good designers understand the entire process including how their designs get built, maintained and operated.
Rachel Levy
Thank you Jared, for this perfectly convincing article! We cannot emphasize enough the importance of templates in BIM workflows and their critical role in the BIM ROI.
However, they did exist before, in CAD, but were much less complex.
It would be great to obtain, one day, some common (and adaptable) templates, which would have built-in industry standards, especially for the BIM objects. – To avoid “re-inventing the wheel” in every office, save thousands of man-years and facilitate collaboration and communication…
@LeJournalDuBIM
Jared Banks
You are right, the world of CAD did (and does) have templates. I discount templates from the world of CAD because I don’t think they are complex enough to offer the sort of benefits that we see with good BIM templates. I know I’m probably being a bit unfair, but I always viewed them as just a digitization of the drafting templates and rapidographs we all used pre-computers.
Common, flexible, and adaptable templates that remove much of the duplication so many of us do would be great. As more automation creeps into BIM software, I think that will happen.
T.Terpstra
Very good article.
Time saving with templates and parts is the same as work with 2d CAD only.
Aydin Ozcekic
Perfect article !. I have worked on BIM implementation in different projects since 2012 and according to my experiences I am exactly agree with your article.
Steve Nickel
Hi again Jared…you are right on. Believe it or not, we skipped the CAD stage…went straight to ArchiCAD from the drawing board. I logged the hours on my first model: 1/3 learning, 1/3 building favorites (our template), and 1/3 building the model. My subsequent models are down to about 40% if that first one, and FAR better. My real question is: Does anybody out there find that they can charge more for the 3D visualization, BIMx, etc. that
ArchiCAD provides?
Jared Banks
I have in the past. But now I just consider it what I do; more and more of it is part of my services outlined from the start in the contract. When I’m putting together a proposal, it includes things like renderings, BIMx, extra schedules, etc. And I’m constantly trying to offer more of it to my clients-either in the contract or as I think of more things during the project.
It really comes down to how you bill your clients. I typically work hourly, so I am charging for all this stuff because it takes me time-even if that amount of time is nominal. Of course there are parts I don’t charge for because I’m experimenting and researching. So that’s more template time.
I guess my motto now is “treat more BIM deliverables like traditional documentation: it’s just stuff we do and get paid for”. Am I making MORE money off this stuff? Probably not. But since everything takes less time, I’m making the same amount of money as I made before, but doing better, more fun stuff.
That all said, I do think it’s fair to offer some things as additional services if your production and modeling speed is not there yet.
Pingback: Why BIM is Still Bankrupting Your Firm | BIM WO...
Ash
Nice report. One thing I’m wondering is do you set up your templates for level 2 BIM (UK)? In the UK, and presumably the US the layers, pen sets etc. have to be universal. Are you following these rules or using your own and sticking to level 1 BIM?
Jared Banks
I’m sure people will yell at me for this, but…to me there is no level 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever BIM. I don’t think in terms of “I am doing level 1 or level 1.33 or level 2 BIM”. In my market there are no required standards. And I don’t foresee the USA adopting UK standards, so I am not trying to comply with them. I know enough about level 2 BIM (thanks to Rob Jackson and is awesome blog), am trying to learn more, and am trying to be cognizant of how my personal template could one day be adapted to a rigid set of requirements like that. But I don’t follow any external standards in my work. And here’s why:
It’s unnecessary order and complexity for residential work, which is the bulk of my projects. I could force myself to follow specific standards, but there’s no guarantee that when I finally need to follow one that I would have chosen the right one. Rather than try to keep up unnecessarily with a moving target or have to strip away the wrong standards from my template when I finally need to comply, I keep my template lean and my workflows flexible. Is it easier to switch from no external standard to an external standard or from one standard to another? I’d wager it’s the former, if your template and workflows have proper discipline and are trying generically to push forward (as mine is by being to work with the framework of IFC types and more realistic modeling).
I personally take issue with the concept that there is one true form of BIM. It’s impossible to know what the digital landscape will look like in five years. And there are many goals. Perhaps before a BIM standard is adopted in the USA, I’ll be able to export directly from ARCHICAD to construction robots. Who knows. My interest is therefore in making better models, putting more data into them, and integrating all that into my design process. Rather than force myself to follow someone else’s interests in BIM, I’m just going to continue following my own path. A fixed standard would distract me from what I’m interested in researching and exploring with BIM. In the end, if I need to follow some protocol (for a national standard, for a client requirement, for a consultant, for some external process) I can deal with it when it’s required for my work.
If we look at the final image in the blog post, that arrow is the key. Templates (and BIM) are about automating work and moving what you do to the left of the graph. If you are adding work to the left of the graph that didn’t exist in the right of the graph, there better be a damn good reason. If you add work/requirements to your template it needs to because of some benefit later on (time, money, value). Otherwise you’re just falling into another trap. You’re just making BIM harder and more complex for no reason.
Miguel Sánchez León
I might be 3 1/2 years late to the conversation, but this is comment is so accurate that it could be a whole post or even a conference just by itself haha. I appreciate not only your amazing job, creating an already classic article in terms of BIM adoption, that stands valid today from A to Z. But also for your commitment to BIM, and your insights and replies to every time possible.
Jared Banks
Thanks! Maybe it’s time for me to revisit this blog post and comment and right a 2019 or 2020 follow up. I just need to find the time!
Morris Richards
It is interesting that the process of getting 2D info out for build really hasn’t changed that much in 40 years in that all repetition work has generally always been done. I was brought up on a staple of ‘Poly negatives’ and standard note sheets. Little has changed, except the complexity. I do agree that in the residential market of one off houses and extensions it is hard to make Level 2 BIM applicable and easy, YET. I’m sure it will change. As a sole practitioner I am endlessly frustrated that what comes out of the box or the upgrades one gets appears to apply to larger organisations and for large practices. When the bulk of Architects are in small practices dealing with relatively small work is it not time to address this issue? Updating your template each time a new release comes out, erasing numerous layout sheets etc makes for a tedious time. It has taken me years to get pen sets and building materials and colours to look correct on a drawing. Setting complex profiles etc only to find some things need modification or duplicated. There still is a mass of standard materials missing from standard supplied stuff. e.g plain tiles in the UK are regularly a component used yet getting the colour in the pallet remains a bespoke thing. There is also a misconnection between the modelling and how to draw/output simple and standard details like eaves detailing , stairs. etc. Until the ‘2D’ info is easier to output I believe there will always be a ‘lag ‘ in the graphs and a reluctance to embrace the BIM opportunities. We yet need to have specification and notes and drawing info seamlessly linked. Part of the difficulty remains that the developers are fantastic at making the CAD and BIM programs but largely don’t know how buildings go together so the process is disjointed and the designer has to then think how can I use this BIM/CAD to make my component and represent the detail I need.
Pingback: The Wrong BIM Workflow | Enzyme
Michelle Marques
Hi Jared, greetings from Brasil!
I figured out your site thursday (looking for ifc configurations) and I’m reading it until now (and I’ll keep doing it for all my “vacations”). I just loved it. Will be very useful to me, I’m learning about “hard” Archicad, and you lessons about the tools and template are great, cause it’s more than just an explanation, another users use to come here and comment, and ask… (and you always answer them) that’s amazing.
I didn’t download your template yet (cause I’m finalizing my own, and it needs to be metric and I use brazilian archicad, that has some differents objects, so I would need to translate everything… =/) so I didn’t analysed it: which LOD – Level of Development – is it? Do you know?
Which state from USA are you? It’s very interesting to see an american using archicad, cause I thought the most part of USA uses Revit, but California and northeast of country.
Do you know the BCF tool? Is an plugin that shares the issues between users, for a compatibilization of model (including between programs, you can share an image from Solibri, for example and see it on Archicad, or Revit or any other modeler). I know what it is and how it works, but I never used it. If you did, show us something… =)
Jared Banks
Michelle, if you want to convert my ARCHICAD template to metric, it’s not hard. Here’s a tutorial I did. It sounds like you have your own template well underway, but in case you want to borrow anything from mine, that link should help. I have tested out Kubus’ BCF BIMcollab solution. It’s probably the best BCF manager out there. Although the built-in BCF manager within ARCHICAD is very good too. None of my collaborators are far enough along with BIM for me to need BCF, so my knowledge is just academic. But I will look into finding someone to share more about it in 2016, a it’s a good tool and only going to get more important.
I’m in Seattle, Washington and we have lots of ARCHICAD users here. And when I was living in Minnesota we had plenty of ARCHICAD users there too. I think it’s a misrepresentation to say that ARCHICAD usage in concentrated in a few places in the USA. There are a lot of us all over the states (and the world) and that number is growing at a rate faster than ever.
Finally, as for LOD… I’m not a fan of that term. I’ll hopefully write more about that in the coming months, as I have some articles started on the topic. But the short answer is: I’m not doing fabrication from my models and the LOD varies across the project. I’m putting as much detail as I can to aid design and documentation. That means some things are very high LOD and others are quiet low because both are the wise decision for that piece of the model. Also I’m presently more interested in non-physical data. I’d rather focus on sun and wind than the number of screws or sheets of plywood. THAT said, I have done a project where I modeled each piece of lumber and sheet of plywood separately. All depends on the client, the project, and the goal.
John Tolhurst
I converted your template, Jared, to metric. I found it was easiest to delete all the feet/inch scales, then make one new scale in mm, label it ‘M’, then select when needed.
Jared Banks
that’s great!
Jakub
Thank you for your article. BIM is slowly flowing to our country and I expect similar “PANIC” situations as our managers want to buy finished solution without any further development.
BIM is a powerful tool, but needs to be mastered and used correctly, otherwise you would spend more time on it. I guess it is the same situation as skilled hand drawers vs the first CAD software users.
Jared Banks
Jakub, Yes! We have been here before, and we will be here again. Jon Buerg wrote a great article about this a few months ago: Here We Go Again.
christian fekete
Very interesting article. I have had many discussions about this with various other architects and I chose to do a little of BIM and mostly 3D with a few of the tools offered by my soft, I use Vectorworks and Used Revit for a new house, they are similar and I use them in similar ways, I count spaces and report on that, tried the appliances and windows/doors list, OK… I never completely trust the computer because if I rely too much on the calculations I may miss something. This is really BIM, counting beans, no pawn intended. BIM does not help you with details and that;s where I think this article is interesting for mentioning the usefulness of templates.
Overall I feel like Jared but to me the question is more should we draw in 3D vs. 2D, sorry for highjacking the conversation here. I think so but that also takes a long time and is not reusable right? Or you work like this architect who does all in ketchup with a variety of details in 3D. What do you think about that?
Thanks for a great article. Best of Year 2016
Jared Banks
The answer is that BIM is a bit more than you think it is. This post about the four flavors of BIM and the follow up post The Primary Benefits of BIM talk about my views. Interestingly, they were follow ups to my original Why BIM is Bankrupting your firm post.
Ben Kruseman
Hello Jared,
A verry good artikle which fits in our strategie of doing the BIM business with our customers. Do you have experiance with parts off CRH in the USA?
It is my goal and challenge to share more off this experiance in the building (CRH) industry
Jared Banks
I don’t think I’ve worked with CRH yet. Or if I have, it’s been a long time and I don’t remember!
Ben Kruseman
In reaction off the input off Michelle Marques: as CRH Structural we use IFC, Solibri, BCF, etc. On http://www.crhstructural.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CRH-Structural-Memo-gebruik-BCF_v2.01.pdf you can find de link to Building Smart.
Nice to see that BIM is going to be a worldwide subject!
Natalia Locke
Great article – right on point. thank you
Fred Kloet
What the essence of your article say: stop working and thinking CAD, start adopting BIM.
Joseba González
Good analisys. Thoughtful and based on solid grounds. I totally agree that good templates will push BIM greatly. Same as they did with 2D CAD but with a bigger impact in time saving..
I would justs like to suggest a correction to the graphics.
In the coordination tab both workflows, 2D CAD and BIM, end up at the same point suggesting that the level of coordination obtained at the end of the project is the same.
From my experience, the level of coordination obtained through BIM is considerably higher that the one you get following a 2D CAD traditional method. Therefore, to be able to compare both methods, we should look into the time needed to reach the same level of coordination. With this constriction in time, the 2D CAD finish point should show a much more vertical finish, adding a considerable amount of time at the end.
Another element to consider for the “templating” tab analisys is the different BIM software to manage. I have the feeling that Autodesk is becoming the preferred tool but on the same hand I keep on reading “ARCHICAD” in many comments. Right now, IFC is good for a making compatible a final product but during desing stage many clients require the use of an specific software. What do you think would be the impact in the graphic if two or three different softwares must live together in your office?
Jared Banks
The added time for coordination is taken into account when one looks at the area under the curve. There is a mountain of additional time. Look at the graphs from this perspective: the vertical axis is hours and the horizontal axis is weeks. Imagine each project will be completed in the same number of weeks (x-axis). The vertical access tells you how much time needs to be spent each week to make that deadline. We could definitely rearrange these graphs to show total number of weeks to complete a project, in which case the X-axis would vary. But those would be graphs trying to tell a different story. I think I have a follow up post brewing on this topic now!
As for the second half of your comment: we could definitely do a BIM graph for different software platforms, but I’m noting going to do that. That’s just a recipe for fighting and arguing. And I think there are very few people who could effectively make a graph for each program, as we have our biases and experiences to draw on. So of course I would make the ARCHICAD graph more flattering than the Revit graph. And I’d expect a Revit user to do the same. Which means in the end, each would probably average out to the various graphs above.
Also I’m a stickler for language. I don’t believe Revit is becoming the preferred tool. It has a larger market share in the USA than other BIM programs and some uninformed clients are asking for it as a proprietary solution, but that does not mean it’s preferred, better, or a situation we as an industry should support. For projects that require collaboration, IFC is as good, if not better than a closed solution. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves and our clients that open solutions benefit everyone and closed solutions only benefit software developers. If every architecture firm used the same software, who would win? Absolutely not us.
If I image a firm trying to juggle ARCHICAD, REVIT, and other BIM platforms to appease irresponsible decisions made by clients, I’d make all the graphs suffer. A firm-unless it’s large enough to have independent, dedicated studios-can’t properly master multiple BIM platforms. Or not as well as a firm dedicated to one can. Which again is an argument for openness and not following the herd by picking the software one feels one has to pick.
Sean Doughtie
I’m an ‘out of the box person’… Is anyone looking at why the template state of BIM is so difficult?
Someone about said, “the process hasn’t changed in 40 years.” Is an indication that something is wrong with or without a building model.
Jared Banks
That’s a great question. There are a number of reasons; here are a few:
1) software companies aren’t the ideal organizations to develop templates, they don’t know what is needed on a day to day basis.
2) templates are regional. What we need in the USA is different than the UK or France or Japan or South Africa…
3) templates are project type specific. What we need for custom residential is different than for high rises or hospitals or government work or education…
4) templates are not static. A good template always incorporates lessons learns and evolves based on previous work.
5) templates should take into account the people using them. A template for a small firm will be different than one for a large firm. A template for power users will be different than one for a firm new to BIM or a firm with a high percentage of newbies.
6) the way architects work is hyper personal. If you ask four architects how to draw a section, you’ll get at least five answers. And that’s for something simple and un-BIM. Once you get to how to organize data, export to IFC, etc. the personal preference multiples. As much as we talk about unification and getting everyone to follow a common standard, it’ll never happen. Not as long as people are the ones controlling documentation. Maybe the arrival of robotic competition will be the nail in the coffin. Or the reason to push further towards artisanal documents.
7) templates should be designed to facilitate work and accomplishing goals. How we work and what are goals are vary from firm to firm and are intertwined with our business models.
8) … I’m sure I could think of more. I love this topic!
cfrevizo
Not to be picky, but your graph parameters on the horizontal lines should read, IMO for BIM as; Templating, Design, “Coordination”, then Documentation. For me as you show it is more true in a CAD workflow.
Jared Banks
That’s what the graphs are showing. The amount of time spent verifying and coordinating after the completion of documentation is greatly reduced.
Thiago Mundim
Really good article Jared! Congratulations 😉
Pingback: Spielregeln für ein erfolgreiches integrales Projekt mittels BIM - BIM-Events.de
Tamer Tageldin
Jared, greetings from Dubai, I have visited this article 4-5 times, great piece of information, briefs the BIM adoption process, I would stress on the value of a good template(s) and having the right team on this job, in addition to the right R&D budget given to a competent team who is involved in the production, thanks!
Michael Gustavson
The time when templates are the most frustrating is when a new version comes out, because there are new bells and whistles in the software and its hard to know if your old template is jiving with the new bells and whistles of the software upgrade.
Lana
We see the architect spending more time in coordination then indicated in the graphics. Maybe move coordination prior to documentation?
Jared Banks
Coordination in these diagrams is dealing with changes/alterations/fixes post-documentation that are the result of poor communication during the earlier phases. If you are seeing more coordination prior to the completion of documentation, that’s a good sign that your architects are working in a smarter fashion–and are trying to solve problems in the digital rather than physical realm.
Lana
That is good news, in our case, with our architects. It then brings up the question – Why are more firms not problem solving digitally? Isn’t that they point of BIM? Are we not digitally prototyping? Ok, it brings up a lot more then just one question. If we work smart and like you mentioned, don’t run duel 2D / 3D paths, BIM should be a money maker.
Jared Banks
Yes to all of that. Why it’s not happening is a convergence of a lot of reasons. But it can be summed up with: fear, uncertainty, and dread. Most architecture offices (and engineers and contractors) have a process that makes them money. They are hesitant to deviate too much because they don’t know what’s on the other side. Truly adopting BIM methods requires so much effort that they resist. Fortunately there are enough of us in the industry that are forging ahead because we are small, because we embrace change, because we are looking for a competitive edge, because we aren’t burdened with legacy solutions and software. Eventually the laggards will be forced to adapt because that will be the only way to survive. I’m sure substantial adoption is still years off. Many of us have been doing BIM for 10, 20, 30+ years and still have more to explore. Each year the goal post moves farther down the field.
Pingback: Gestione di un Progetto BIM [1] | Shelidon
Chiara C. Rizzarda
Hi Jared, you know I’m a big fan of this article of yours: I just wanted to let you know that I’ll be using your “move work this way” principle as one of the conclusions for my speech at the European BIM Summit of Barcelona, on the 9th of March. Of course I’ll fully credit you.
Jared Banks
Chiara,
That’s awesome! Thanks for letting me know, for sharing the concept, and best of luck in Barcelona. Wish I could be there.
Hotchif Arq develop.
Hi Chiara,
We’ll be in Barcelona’s BIM Summit, hope to meet you there.
I’m sure that you will mention Jared Banks in yout speech as the author of this brilliant approach to the BIM process.
BR
Hotchif Arq develp.
Michel Wuyts
Amazing how this article from 2015 is still topical, more than ever. Also from general contractors’ side, we fully support this BIM experience and are working at using standard details and materials, even standard lay-out parts to re-use our solutions. A big challenge we have is to find preferred subcontractors who agree to work this way. W’ll try to convince them with these graphs!
Hung Pham
When do you think this issue will resolve?
Jared Banks
It varies by firm. For many of us this stopped being an issue years and years ago. Other firms will never see increased profits or a competitive advantage because of the switch. It’s all about mindset. There’s too many variables to say definitively, but if the transition takes longer than 6 to 12 months, something is wrong.
Pingback: Industry Events - London Autumn 2018 - Archilizer
Pingback: Pourquoi le BIM peut encore mener votre entreprise à la faillite - R2BIM
Pingback: Proyectista BIM, eres tan bueno como tus plantillas – Paraproy
Pingback: Proyectista BIM, eres tan bueno como tus plantillas - BIM Channel
Pingback: 12 Steps For Starting a New Project in Archicad – GRAPHISOFT North America
Pingback: Ten Tips for Successful BIM Implementation - Shoegnome Architects