Article from on SmartBuilding (aka BIM)

[Andre Baros]

http://www.aecbytes.com/viewpoint/issue_17.htm

The idea is to drop the silly BIM moniker and switch to the more glamorous idea of SmartBuilding.

[clarkitekt]

Sounds like there are some things that he just isn't quite grasping to me. I do like his comment about risk management.

[PeterJ]

What is he not grasping? I was rather impressed by his take on the whole business not just the model.

[Roger Evans]

I agree with PJ here the article was nicely composed
Personally I have never liked using "BIM" ~ it somehow feels negative to me so I would welcome a change

"WoW" (Wonderful Opportunities Worldwide) although less descriptive is far more appropriate

[davidwlight]

I've had the chance to met Mario...very bright cookie. He really believes in Revit & wants to make it work for HOK; in terms of Revit not working for them, failure is just not a option! AIso, I have to agree "SmartBuilding" does sound a lot better than BIM.

[rhys]

What is he not grasping? I was rather impressed by his take on the whole business not just the model.
Absolutely he grasps it completely, an great article, and I like the idea of "Owen Consultancy LLP - buildingSMART with Revit" R.I.P BIM, building SMART it is

[clarkitekt]

I am with him up until the "BIM is Your Friend" section. I am sorry to alienate the people doing dumb drawings but they are in fact, "Dumb Drawings." (Not to be confused with dumb people, I am not calling anyone dumb) At the end of the day the communication with those making the building has not changed however. Yeah, WE (being the design team) can produce better coordinated "dumb drawings" with Revit. Yay. Nothing Earth shattering here (and not that it should be earth shattering simply for the sake of being earth shattering), and not really going to do anything to achieve the wishes he outlines at the beginning of his article (ok so it will help the first one):


Instead, let's talk about making design decisions earlier.
Let's talk about controlling construction costs; and, using less energy.
Let's talk about better design; and pre-fabrication with mass customization.

The fact remains, at the end of the day, we are still trying to describe a 3 dimensional construct in 2 dimensions. This breakdown in communication is ultimately where the largest number of construction errors are generated. Read, misinterpretation of the drawings. Well duh. Buildings are complicated 3d constructs, obviously if you are trying to translate that to 2d you are going to have some misunderstandings. We are still trying to communicate years worth of decisions and thousands or millions of 3 dimensional relationships of components on a 24x36 inch sheet of paper. Yeah, let's talk construction costs. Hmm, are mistakes caused by misinterpretation expensive? You bet. Who pays in the end? The owner. We should be communicating in a 3d "Building Information Model". Guttman "doesn't get it."

Why wouldn't we? It is all there. The design team had to figure out all those relationships to create their dumb drawings anyways (or at least they SHOULD be figuring out all those relationships). Yes, let's be careful about how we provide information and how it is used by others. Let's not just be careful, let's be intelligent about it.


For two decades we have forced design professionals to know about the "DIMWIT" and "DUMBASS" variables and it has hurt their ability to put buildings together.
Are you calling the constructino workers Dimwits and Dumbasses Mr. Guttman? Just a thought. Maybe the only dumbasses and dimwits in the equation are us for not communicating effectively?

"Interoperability" and "Industry Foundation Classes" happen to be enablers of "Mass Customization". Without these, mass customization is just a term, a fluffy pipe dream for Architects to espouse at social events.

Don't "Build Smart". Build Intelligently.

[Steve_Stafford]

Are you calling the construction workers Dimwits and Dumbasses Mr. Guttman? Just a thought. Maybe the only dumbasses and dimwits in the equation are us for not communicating effectively?ummm...he's referring to us having to know arcane variables in AutoCAD to get work done...not calling construction workers names... he used those names as opposed to picking specific variable names...

[clarkitekt]

Ah! Thanks Steve. That makes more sense now. My apologies I keep hearing that thrown around as an inhibitor to getting "good" buildings built so I probably read into it before I listened to what he was saying.

Doesn't change my point though. I don't think that he is thinking of the real possibilities. And who cares what the hell it is called anyways? We should be working more intelligently than we are.

[Wes Macaulay]

I had a good laugh at the "DUMBASS and DIMWIT variables" since many of us are familiar with the scores of AutoCAD DIMxxx variables that we had to manage. Guttman reminds me of one of our clients here in town who is about the same age and very CAD literate and also wields a sharp and witty tongue.

It again demonstrates how Autodesk bought Revit as a solution to a problem their own product had created.

As for BIM, it's a stupid term that Autodesk's competitors have co-opted. I prefer ArchiCAD's "virtual building" moniker... everyone knows what virtual reality is and Virtual Building is probably the most easily understood term for what Revit does.

[Scott D Davis]

Did our WLC Build Smart Logo

[clarkitekt]

I had a good laugh at the "DUMBASS and DIMWIT variables" since many of us are familiar with the scores of AutoCAD DIMxxx variables that we had to manage. Guttman reminds me of one of our clients here in town who is about the same age and very CAD literate and also wields a sharp and witty tongue.

It again demonstrates how Autodesk bought Revit as a solution to a problem their own product had created.

As for BIM, it's a stupid term that Autodesk's competitors have co-opted. I prefer ArchiCAD's "virtual building" moniker... everyone knows what virtual reality is and Virtual Building is probably the most easily understood term for what Revit does.

Sorry guys, I didn't intend to sound like I was completely dismissing the article. Interestingly I read the article earlier today and got the impression that Guttman was dismissing the notion of BIM (and by BIM I mean the whole notion of getting more from the model than a stack of drawings at the end of the day, which is what we got in the old days from that great virtual building model that we held in our head). After re-reading his article I agree with him more and more. It's interesting how frame of mind can influence ones perception of what they read...mine in particular.

So, my applogies Mr. Guttman. Lead on.

[mibzim]

Great article... interesting point that he touched on was the gap between a 3D model and a 2D document.

I guess the problem is translating the 3D construct that exists in the mind to computer and then on to the builder - the breakdown from 3D used to be between mind and computer: Smart building has shifted this loss of information to the communication between computer and builder.

My question is: How long until we can remove that breakdown altogether and communicate the 3D building from mind to computer and then straight onto the builder without needing to downgrade to 2D... onsite electronic projections where builders work in, and "fill in" a life size projection of the model...? Crazy? Who knows.

[david.kingham]

It's coming faster than you may think, OSCRE is working on changing the literature so the 3d model will take precedent over the 2d drawings if there is conflict between the two. They have already convinced AISC to change their literature and they had a meeting with the AIA a couple months back to do the same (never heard what came of it though) Exciting times are coming, just have to get the legal boundaries knocked down.

Also there is an architect in california (don't remember the name) that was able to submit a 3d model to the city of los angeles for approval, they had to do a lot of convincing, but they finally got it through!