Not yet everyone is convinced of the need for BIM

The transition to BIM is a mandatory step for AEC companies, large and small. Once the initial decision is made to abandon CAD and introduce BIM, companies are left with new software and old processes.

The creation of new BIM processes and the restructuring of new business strategies for the existing CADD are fundamental to achieve a successful transition and to participate in the AECO market (Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operation). But it is also essential to combat the anti-BIM mentality.
It is essential to understand that BIM is a revolution, not an evolution of CADD. If we want to remain in the AEC industry, it is imperative that we restructure our processes. In a correct BIM implementation the manner in which all incumbents interact with the project must change.

All the teams and companies that have successfully implemented BIM have achieved this success due to the fact that they have followed clearly defined and rigorous processes and guidelines. We could call these ‘standard’ guidelines, but they are not standards until we all use them. This is where the need arises for the integration of the public sector and regulatory bodies for the definition of state implementation policies.

Success in BIM requires much more than simply the good use of a software tool; and in no case can it be considered a new drawing tool. This new process requires that team members leave their comfort zones and, actively, commit to learn, grow and communicate.

If the success of the team depends on each member doing their part at the appropriate time, then it is necessary to practice. It is imperative that professionals invest time in the use of tools with an analytical attitude focused on the BIM process. Reaching the ‘BIM Promise’ is only possible when there is a commitment to communication, active management, and coordination. In this installment we will talk about the problem of this resistance to change and, in a second installment, we will expand on the way to achieve the transition.

• • 1.-Hire More Staff Does not Work with BIM
    In CAD there are many processes that we can now identify as inefficient, one of these processes is the mentality of ‘hiring more personnel to complete the work’; which, by the way, is a failure of management, not production.Using this mentality in BIM, and adding staff to a ‘cold’ team, without the new members understanding the BIM process, the project and / or the company’s policies, will certainly generate serious conflicts in the future stages of the project.

    In most cases these conflicts will be accompanied by large amounts of additional time invested in the correction of foreseeable errors.

    BIM also has its problems, for example, modeling can be a very hypnotizing task; teams may fall into the error of focusing on modeling and losing the focus of the actual goal: quantification, efficiency, costs.

    Establishing rigorous processes will avoid these problems.

    The purpose of BIM and its wider application in IPD (Integrated Project Delivery), in the end, can be considered as a process that allows more efficiency and better execution in projects, with less request for clarifications of the plans, etc. The AEC industry requires this.

  •  
  • 2.-A Clear Understanding and Transformation to BIM
    So, how does a firm manage to successfully transform its processes to BIM?The first thing is to clarify what are the things that work and those that do not work.

    The willingness to adopt technology at the managerial level is crucial to change and accept new ways of producing, coordinating and presenting projects. Secondly, it is essential to create systems and guides that will help the team to manage the objectives of the projects and the general goals of the company.

    The change can come in multiple ways; as, for example, allowing current processes to evolve, such as the production of quantization tables, graphic styles, and all other areas that are affected.

    The dilemma of ‘Pursuing CAD’, for example, is a common mistake. Investing efforts to replicate the results of CAD in BIM is a real waste of time. The form of a label never produced any amount of money for a company, but following the references on the labels with complete certainty has caused losses to many projects and companies. It is important to define what to focus the efforts on, and doing it at the right time is equally important.

    Allow the evolution of symbols, etc. in BIM it is more appropriate; especially when labels, and other annotations can be associated with specific elements giving the project better quality data with less need for clarifications compared to CAD. BIM can tell a better story than CAD because in CAD we are drawing, and in BIM we are building.

    The past can inform part of our future processes, but it is important to be careful and be a bit skeptical about ideas such as “why? because we’ve always done it that way. ” These types of reasoning are errors to avoid in all cases.

  •  
  • 3.-The excuse “It is not possible to do that in BIM” and “We have always done it that way”