As a BIM early adopter, proponent and dedicated all-in user since 1996, I’ve heard the advocacy arguments repeated long enough that cracks formed in the wall of argument years ago, doubts appeared in the cracks and grew until my old wall turned to dust in the wind replaced by new arguments supporting different ideas.
While I recognize Simon Dilhas’ points here https://dilhas.substack.com/p/bim-busters-the-client-needs-to-order, and there is wisdom and value in them, they are points that fit in a category that we might call ‘lamentations of BIM advocates’ or ‘disappointments in BIM adoption rates’ or ‘BIM isn’t valuable for you because you’re doing it wrong’… and, these categories for many years have pointed at sub-optimal targets.
There is a legitimate counter argument that’s present anyway (even if not put to words) wherever BIM resistance is typically encountered.
And there is a more productive target for blame.
Blame can be placed where it belongs, on a worthy target, on the responsible party, not the wrong targets. Blame is rightly earned by corporate software development organizations and their products, which still today remain inadequate for fundamental reasons, reasons that are true all the way down, not superficial reasons.
I’ll get to the counter argument but let’s start with blame, since it’s so popular. For decades now blame’s been scattered around buckshot style everywhere, but never on the target that’ll make a difference. Some of the targets have been at least plausible; you can see that blame could be assigned there; it could possibly make sense. Whether it actually makes sense or not is another question.
Robert Klaschka mentions a good one here:
the now 30+ year old understanding/acceptance that the built environment needs more rigorously structured data if it is to get the most from technology,
Yes, not infrequently the relative lack of “structured data”, or, inadequate adherence to data standardization schemes is made the target receiving BIM advocacy arrows, structured data the sponge that absorbs all the blame for BIM disillusionments either in industry BIM adoption rates, or non-attainment of outcomes that had been vaguely suggested (not really articulated) where BIM was adopted.
“Structured data” has been made the answer to all problems and the lack of it the cause.
There have been other targets nominated as the cause of the problems, including:
- the general inadequacy of the human psyche, the need to form a new human mind
- Contract law, and the foundational premise of contract (commitments made tangibly clear, not obscured in fog),
- the failure to use only one software,
- slow to retire tech laggards (insufficient enthusiasm for software products)
- inability to get to the future where it’s easy to find inexpensive used time machines for getting there.
Sure, many more will be added yet. These and others have been targets for those searching for who or what to blame, for failures where BIM hasn’t delivered on its notional promises, or BIM’s failure to find universal admiration and adoption.
Despite the undeniable allure of the logically apparent abundance of inexpensive used Time Machines in the future, if only we could get there to get them, let’s aim at another target and see what happens.
Think for a second about the creation and use of highly elaborated models (mental and digital) of complex projects like buildings (small and large, and very large), bridges, power plants, and so on.
Models of these, mental and digital, don’t come into existence fully formed in an instant. Their development extends over long durations of time, months, years even.
Here is a simplified encapsulation of some of the important factors in the development of complex mental models and their digital analog (as it were):
We all might reflect on the function of technical drawings, a function inseparable from models (mental and digital). The function is multifold:
1. Technical drawing is an expression of the act of looking somewhere specific within a model. The act of visual close study (VCS) and its articulation.
2. There at that location, we evaluate, is everything that SHOULD be shown HERE actually shown here? Is anything that matters HERE missing?
3. Finally at some point after the long work of model development and review, someone with authority to do so, AFFIRMS the status of the questions in (2).
4. Along the way, an INTERPLAY is engaged between these many expressions of visual close study (VCS), which articulate the act of narrowed visual attentive focus, and the wider expansive environment of the whole of the project model. This interplay is a back and forth continuous dynamic. There is good argument that it -is- the basic observable dynamic of thought itself, that it IS a machine of thinking, an engine of thought.
The idea that one side of the interplay can either be discarded, or stuck in a non-evolving centuries-old form of expression and externalized from the digital model, is simply self-defeating and counterproductive, Maximally.
I draw your attention to item 4 in particular and emphasize it. For 30+ years now of marketing and development of digital modeling software in the AEC market, VCS has been left largely undeveloped. This undermines the modeling endeavor itself. The engine of thought itself is left underpowered.
The vague notional promises of BIM, promises formulated by corporate marketing departments, in the language of corporate marketing (sell what we have NOW like there’s no tomorrow) which typically isn’t driven despite the field’s claims to the contrary, by reflection on what’s really going on, what’s needed, what products should be developed, but rather, post-rationalizing the products that do exist… it is no wonder that the notional promises are in fact not met, and, yes this is important, it’s no surprise that a lot of people rightly believe there’s something there, that there ought to be something of great value in digital modeling, so people inevitably are going to fill the void with blaming, nudging, shaming, dreaming, over-promising, and in some cases, tuning of expectations and good advice and so on, but the song remains the same:
The software is to blame.
It’s not the human psyche. It’s not contract law. It’s not tech laggards and insufficient enthusiasm for software products or collaborative process. It’s not closed minds and stubborn conformance with old ways. IT’S THE SOFTWARE. IT’S THE FAILURE OF THE SOFTWARE. IT’S THE SOFTWARE’S INADEQUACY, NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, NOT BUILT, NOT DESIGNED TO ADDRESS WHAT’S ACTUALLY NEEDED.
I’ll repeat a paragraph because it’s worth repeating.
4. Along the way, an INTERPLAY is engaged between these many expressions of visual close study (VCS), which articulate the act of narrowed visual attentive focus, and the wider expansive environment of the whole of the project model. This interplay is a back and forth continuous dynamic. There is good argument that it -is- the basic observable dynamic of thought itself, that it IS a machine of thinking, an engine of thought.
VCS, and the model<>VCS INTERPLAY, are not adequately addressed in software products today.
If they were, then model utility and utilization would increase, and no one would feel compelled to fill the void with either good advice and lowered expectations, or fantasies and vague notional promises.
Instead we could productively have our feet on the ground and our head in the game.
There’d be nothing to argue about (this is neither politics nor religion) and no one to blame. And no one to shame.
We could all just do our jobs.
Wouldn’t that be nice?
There is a proposal here for VCS development supporting the interplay: https://tangerinefocus.com
And some commentary at the blog:
OPEN VCS, a lens for looking at models 