The Challanges of BIM

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 162 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 12:18 pm:    Whether BIM will live up to its promises in the near future is still open to debate. The process of adopting BIM is something that we have to deal with now. The big challanges have to deal with defining the working relationships between the various parties, defining expectations of what is delivered technically, and how this impacts the work load on individuals. I believe that we will find that a number of otherwise productive individuals will not be able to make the transition to BIM and will be displaced. Those who remember the transition to CAD will probably see a number of similarities. The question is how do we survive the bleeding edge. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 01:53 pm:    of course, the first "challenge" is to spell it correctly... John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 286 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 03:59 pm:    I attended a BIM seminar in December 2005 where Francois Grobler, Research Engineer, IAI Technical Coordinator, US Army Corps of Engineers spoke. The room was full of prominent agency officials and A/E community representatives. I had snuck in since I was a speaker at another session on the mundane subject of construction specifications. Mr. Grobler asked, "What is the BIM?" Several answers were given and it quickly became apparent that there was diversity in understanding of what was the BIM. Yielding to my smart-ass tendencies, I quipped, "It's an elephant." That is, it is like the story of blind men describing an elephant. To one who encountered a leg, the elephant was like a tree trunk. To the one who found its side, it was like a giant wall. To the one who found an ear, it was flat and wrinkled, like parchmant. To the one grasping the trunk, it was long and flexible like a snake. Mr. Grobler commented, "That's right." BIM seems to be what one wants it to be, and that's determined by how one interfaces with it. So, does anyone have a complete understanding of what is the BIM? When we talk about the BIM are we talking about the same thing? I'm concerned that there is an elephant about to be loosed on the construction industry, called the BIM. As in India, the elephant can be a most useful, intelligent beast who enables men to do work more productively. I'm concerned that without proper management and control, the BIM elephant could be getting loosed in the china shop of the construction industry which is ill-prepared to deal with it. The consequences could be very messy. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 58 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:05 am:    I don't think we can reach consensus understanding of BIM until 1) we realize that true design team collaboration is at the heart of it; 2) we read case studies of successful projects to see how they worked; and 3) learn to use collaboration tools we already have but seldom use, such as UniFormat. I don't think we can learn to work in a BIM framework if we don't know how to classify project criteria in terms of performance values in uniform terminology. Regarding collaboration, as much as we want to be included in early design stage activities, many of us in small firms have had to develop working skills for getting things done on our own. Collaboration skills atrophy in these circumstances. A lot of what is written about BIM does more to define what it is not rather than what it is. I found a few good resources online that helped me acquire a better, but still vague understanding of it. First, I suggest reading the Wikipedia entry on BIM and following the links to Jerry Laiserin's website. Next, read the case study in the December 06 CS written by Alberto Cavallero, AIA, titled "Comprehensive BIM Collaboration: Integrating A/E/C Implementation for Building Information Modeling." Case studies give me more information than theory pieces, although theory peices are important and should continue to be developed. Finally, Roger Grant published an article titled "Unifying Global Building Information" in the January 2007 CS. These resources have helped me a great deal. I hope they work for you as well. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 532 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:49 pm:    What I'm seeing in my current office is that using 3D modeling puts the architect back in the "adult" position in the project team. The contractor is using OUR information to generate pricing -- not his interpretation of our information -- and that means that we have to be responsible for the veracity and coordination of that information. We provide the drawings that are used for fabrication and do the quantity take-offs (or rather the program does it). Do we still have disputes with contractors -- of course. it does mean that our internal process has to be more rigorous but what I'm seeing is that the architect is back at the table again as a full participant instead of being on the defensive. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 310 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, June 24, 2007 - 07:31 pm:    The recently concluded CSI SHOW (& convention) was obsessed with BIM. Rightly or wrongly, it was topic No. 1 in the education sessions ... or at least in the education tracks I was interested in: specifications and contract documents. I'm interested in reading what others thought of the presentations. How shall we respond to the clarion call, "The BIM is coming! The BIM is coming!" David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 239 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 08:43 am:    Since so many firms have taken the initiative to embark on the BIM path, and many owners are now mandating it, I'd say its already here. Sure, there is a long learning curve and some bugs to work out (much the same as there was with CAD), but that does not seem to have stopped those who wish to remain on the cutting edge as leaders in the industry. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 644 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 11:27 am:    I was struck by the strong indication of linkage between revised/upgraded manufacturer's information being directly imported into the BIM database, without any "filterin" by, say, a specifications person. And there seemed to be a benign innuendo that somehow a single database was in the offing, unless a firm gets full-bore into BIM-- a costly and very long process. Not really sure we are gaining that much-- except more work and profit for software comapnies. Wonder why they sought to develop all this with so little input from the construction side,and why they did not think it through-- i.e., how a BIM design is worked into and utilized as construction information. Guess I'm missing a lot! John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 319 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 02:58 pm:    I attended several BIM sessions at the 2007 CSI SHOW (and convention). I did not gain a sufficient understanding of how specifications production works with the information base that is at the core of the Building Information Model. The tout is certainly presented that BIM will solve drawings/specifications coordination problems and that somehow specifications production will be automated. In fact, the whole issue of construction contract documents was missing from the discussions, including Bidding (Procurement) Requirements, Conditions of the Contract, the Specerfictations and the Drawings. Did anyone learn what we can expect for specs in the future, besides new numbers and titles? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 655 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 04:02 pm:    Now for specs, but maybe pink slips for spec writers. I heard no mention of them-- seems the route of documentation is from the manufacturer to the BIM database, without any sort of asessment or filtering. And all thatis based on good,proper, and perhaps overly [needlessly] extensive data from the manufacturers. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 591 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 04:15 pm:    the push for 3D modeling is coming from the contractor side, almost more than from the owner side. by having one file, you can find conflicts faster, and see the coordination between the various pieces on the model. I think we're a ways out before the specifications get integrated into the 3D model, partially because in most cases, the set of documents is both in 2D and 3D. different types of information occur in the 2D and 3D sets. Until we design buildings that are entirely composed of manufactured components, we're going to need specifier-generated specifications. the installation requirements for cast in place concrete will vary from project to project (for example) and have to be carried in the project manual. Remember when "computerized specs" were thought to relieve the spec writer from actually having to think? I think this is analogous to that. what happens with the 3D model is that more decisions have to be made earlier, which means that the specifier gets busier a lot earlier in the process. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 749 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 05:25 pm:    I agree with Anne's assessment. I think the notable aspect of BIM and and specs of the future is evolution of a spec to a database structure. E-SPECS Linx and BSD Speclink are databases that produce text when processed. (The degree to which they resemble a database for this discussion not being particularly pertinent.) That does not mean that a specifier is not needed, it only means the tool is different. Analogous to moving from a typist to a word processor, perhaps. Once you have specs represented as a database, there are opportunities for connections with a building information model since, in it's higher form, a BIM is a database. This does not mean that a specifier is not needed either, it merely means that the 3D model of the building and the written representation (specs) are sharing the same database. I say model because one of the more promising near-term uses of BIM is to share the "drawings" as electronic 3D models rather than paper 2D drawings. This is going on right now. The extent to which specs and models are sharing information at the moment is small, but the promise is quite large. So for example, in the model a door has a size and swing (as it always has had on drawings and schedules), but it can also have characteristics such as fire rating (which it might inherit because it "knows" it is in a rated assembly) and egress component (which it might inherit because the means of egress could be a component of the model). The written "spec database" can then look at this and know that fire-rated egress doors are required. The spec can become informed about aspects of the design that up to now have had to be manually extracted. The model will have information in it that does not affect the spec. The spec will have information that will not affect the model. Both are part of idealized BIM, which also could include what cleaning products to use on the floor, and when the last time the fan belt was changed. Those things aren't in our documents now either. To me, the most important thing for a specifier to be doing regarding BIM is to maintain a basic understanding of the possibilities of BIM, become aware of what some are doing on the cutting edge, and keep ones finger on the pulse so that when client's ask for it, or we see it reach a point where it adds value and fee, we can be ready. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 105 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 03:02 pm:    It would help me, and others I hope, if those who have had specification experience on a BIM project would be willing to share some of the experience. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 625 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 05:56 pm:    we are starting to set up linking between points on the BIM and some areas of the specs, primarily as a time-and-cost saving measure. by the time I answer the question of "where is this in the specs", we probably have six hours into it (between various people in the office and myself) and that's too much just for a reference function. In terms of how the project works -- I'm still using Masterspec, and we're still coordinating between the drawings and the specs. at the moment, an issue with 3D model distribution is the lack of familiarity with the software below the general contractor level. On our projects, its a requirement that the GC use our software (and we will train them) but we cannot require the subs to use our software. Rather like the early days where we required the contractor to have a FAX machine that interacted with our FAX machine. in addition, the current widely used software (Revit and the like) simply cannot handle the files large enough to encompass large complicated projects, so there are still implementation problems at the large project level. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 699 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 02:32 pm:    I certainly yield to my BIM-fluent colleagues, but the following seems like a fairly lucid discussion, overall. Not very detailed, but several red flags that may or may not be valid. Just interesting-- www.archnewsnow.com/features/Features234.htm Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 643 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 06:27 pm:    I think the most important line in the whole article is "BIM is not a panacea for poor project management". indeed, a badly developed project will almost show up faster in a 3D model than it will in 2D drawings. I don't think that using this software will add fee; what it can do, if the project is properly coordinated, will allow more accurate cost estimates from the contractor and does promise the concept of collision avoidance between overlapping systems. With today's software, I think anyone who thinks that a single data base will hold drawings and specs is delusional. we're not there yet, and I think it will be a while before we get there. it does take a strong personality, but it also takes one who really knows how a building is put together and is monitoring the whole project -- much like any other project. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 397 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 02:37 pm:    bim, Bim, BIM, BIM, BIM !!! It was everywhere at the CSI Show. Well, everywhere except the product exhibits where the intoxication of Green still ruled. I understand BIM was a big topic this year at the AIA Convention. My editor at John Wiley & Sons called me because I'm working on the 6th edition of Construction Specifications Writing: Principles and Procedures. He said, make sure to include BIM in the new edition (huh??). I asked him for a copy of the new book Wiley has published on BIM. I got it and looked through it. In the BIM book, I checked the Index for references to specifications. There were three. I only found one actually in the text and it was just a mention of specifications in passing. I attended EcoBuild in Anaheim last month. I listened to a BIM guru from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories say (to paraphrase), "When someone says this software is BIM, it isn't. As soon as something is presented as BIM, it isn't." It just reinforced my notion that BIM is vapor. At most (in my opinion), it is a practical application of collaboration and project management for design and construction, with some nifty, universal translator software. What did anyone learn about BIM and specifications at the CSI Show and the AIA Convention? Especially, what can be said about BIM and specifications? Is BIM a version of the Emperor's New Clothes? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 142 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 02:50 pm:    Several manufacturers have asked me what they should be providing on their websites. DWG's and DXF's are easy to understand. BIM is not. I just emailed a suggested contact at Autodesk asking him for advice. He is in the PR department and is fairly senior. As you know ARCAT and others are pushing they provide BIM info. Mark Chavez gave me the best answer so far - a PDF with attached info is BIM !! I may go up to Seattle just to sit down with Mark. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 310 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 03:18 pm:    I’ll try to be real brief (unlike my usual self.) Real “BIM” software allows the attachment or embedment of data other than that necessary for the generation of 3dimensional geometry. In fact 3D geometry is not a necessary or sufficient condition of a BIM. Therefore Revit out of the box can HELP create a BIM; Sketch up is not because you can’t embed or link to more data. BTW: A pdf of an entire facility with database accessible tags placed on scans of floor plans might be the core of a BIM Specification data (all varieties material covered in Parts 1, 2, and 3) could be part of a BIM Other life cycle and maintenance data, work orders, etc. NOT part of the original spec and generated through the life of the facility could become part of a BIM. BIMs become REALLY valuable when data can be gathered that has a connection to geographic reality. That’s why GIS has become such a large industry. It’s BIM for cities – it exists, and it works. I’ve advocated GIS for building type facilities for years. Therefore when specification data is linked (I firmly believe that it will not actually be in the same software data file but in allied data files) we will be able to query it and get some really neat quantitative secondary data. When we ask these questions and get the answers; what will the format of the output look like? How much will be text and how much will be graphic? How will qualitative requirements and data be expressed when not connected to a model number or material specification? “Specs” in a BIM will be the result of questions to the databases making up the BIM. The format of the data that allows for the efficient construction and maintenance of the facility will still be an area that CSI can champion. See my new thread "Your software could be a BIM if:" Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 776 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 04:30 pm:    in addition, I don't know ANY firm that is actually linking specs to drawings effectively, and I know a lot of firms (mine included) who simply aren't going to go there for a while. the only way we know of to link the specs is to link a pdf -- and what's the point of that? the models are large enough as it is that no one can open them entirely (we have one project where only 1/10th of the model can be opened without crashing the computer) And, we don't call our stuff BIM -- its the "3D model". I don't know anyone in architecture who is actually using "BIM" and neither do the folks at Gehry Technologies -- and they get paid to monitor this stuff. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 57 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 04:33 pm:    GSA, Disney Studios J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 270 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 04:49 pm:    I am watching the development of BIM (mostly as a buzzword, not as a tool), and I just shake my head. The BIM (Building Information Model) is, in my mind, a work product that some day will be composed of an assembly of solid model objects that not only have geometric attributes (how big, where, etc.), but also physical attributes (mass, color, thermal condutivity, flammability, light transmittance/reflectance. etc.). Such an assembly is capable of interference checking, aggregated thermal performance, fire spread modeling, traffic flow analysis, deflection, and so on, because it will peform appropriately in a simulation with the appropriate data and visual output. The ideal situation is that the general model can be queried in such a way so that various graphic, verbal, or economic "views" (plan, detail, specification section, schedule of values, etc.) of the virtual building can be generated from the same database in the same way that the General Ledger in an accounting package can be used to generate both P&L Statements and Balance Sheets. Such modeling has been the holy grail of CAD every since I have been involved in CAD (going back to the early '80s). There are a couple of problems... The historic problem has been raw computing power. That is why we have tended to break the modeling task down into limited models for different simulations (ray tracing, finite point analysis, thermal performance, costing, etc.). A truly integrated modeling tool would probably result in a database that would be both huge and cumbersome. Just think that what we are looking for is a set of tools through which the designer could change the spandrel panel material (and the detail through which it is incorporated into the virtual building), and resulting elevations, sections, rendered perspectives, specifications, cost opinions, and thermal performance would be automatically updated (this is a relatively trivial example which doesn't really affect geometry, only properties). Demands for computer power increase as the number of objects in the BIM increase, but demands for computer power also increase as the amount of data attached to each object increases. You not only need more memory and processor speed, but better algorithms to optimize use of memory and processing speed. User interfaces and what might be termed interoperability of objects is a further issue. What you want is something that is relatively intuitive for a knowledgeable user; but what user knows this much about a spandrel? The designer wants to know what it looks like; the detailer wants to know how to detail the glazing; the specifier wants to know materials; the cost estimator wants to ... you get the idea. Everyone needs to know a little about the specialized properties that are the specific domain of other specialist, but no one really wants to know EVERYTHING, and I would suggest no one is really interested in dealing with a comprehensive model (and the software interface to deal with it). The really fundamental issue is that a truly comprehensive BIM fails to comprehend the level of abstraction expressed by a set of construction documents (and associated representations). Our documents do not document every item that goes into a building, but instead documents typical instances ("TYPICAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED"). Moreover, some of the documentation we do is much more diagramatic. We have traditionally be able to show what goes on at a particular point in the building without showing all construction that can be inferred from the typical detail. You really don't need the comprehensive BIM in order to do construction (even on very large and complex buildings). There seems to be a move to get around some of the input issues by manufacturer's providing what might be referred to as "BIM blocks." I would guess, however, that these objects are of somewhat limited value since those providing the files don't really know how they will be used. Moreover, those using such components are probably only dimly aware of the properties that are really required by a BIM database. As many firms are finding out, the one who most likely has the best knowledge to design BIM objects is a firm's specification writer. But, how does the object acquire all the attributes that it should have (spec writers do not know all) to be able to be functional in a real BIM? As a final comment, I would suggest that despite reliance on the best BIM practices, a building's constructability and performance cannot be known until a physical object begins to occupy physical space on a physical site. I would further suggest that a building cannot be fully "known" until it has been completely constructed, occupied, and used (kinda gets into life cycle activities). From this perspective, I would suggest that the the BIM database remains incomplete, especially while the building remains in the "virtual" stage. While such a the database may be useful, it may not be as useful as some people might think. The really sad thing is that I saw some BIM stuff happening 20 to 25 years ago at UCLA, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, Michigan, Ohio State, and other places in Europe and Australia. The profession did not really want to be bothered and faculties and deans did not want such research activity detracting from "design inquiry." I guess the first BIM-like application I saw in a real-world context what when a colleague of mine submitted representations from 3-D modeling software (an available commercial package) for a house addition to a building department in the midwest. They wanted no part of it; plans, sections, elevations, details was what they wanted. Further ranting to come. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 250 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 05:14 pm:    IMNSHO, one of the more significant forces behind the push to BIM is indeed "model" related -- but it has nothing to do with building modeling: It's the revenue model. AutoDesk sold open-ended licenses, good for as long as you wanted to use the software. So to maintain cash flow, they had to enhance the product on a regular basis to entice folks to upgrade. The result was more change and more features than most users wanted or needed, and (I suspect) a counterincentive to perfect the product. There always had to be room for significant improvements that users wanted enough that they were willing to pay for them. Revit, by contrast, sold only annual licenses (like most spec software), so the income stream was steady, and upgrades weren't an essential part of the revenue model. If AutoDesk had simply tried to change its licensing structure to annual renewal, a lot of its users would no doubt have said, "No, thank you, the latest version will do for the foreseeable future." So instead, AutoDesk bought Revit. Now it has a plausible way to migrate its customers over to the new revenue model...persuade everyone that BIM (read "Revit") is the wave of the future! And it is (the wave of future revenue, at least). Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 778 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 05:26 pm:    the Novartis project in our office is one model that takes up 13 gigabytes of space; consequently, only a portion of the model can be opened at any one time. And, we don't do "BIM" the way everyone talks about "BIM". in our office, its called a "3D Model" because that's mostly what it is. the shapes of the spaces (and surfaces) we design simply could not be documented using any other type of technology, but the 3D model is used as the primary construction document for only a few of the aspects of the construction: the exterior skin, the steel structure, usually the glazing, complicated ceiling surfaces (such as in a concert hall) and possibly a few other areas as well. the model is NOT the primary construction document for the entire project, and we carefully define in the specs where the primary design criteria is shown in the model or in the 2D drawings. (Autocad for those). There is no way we're going to embed specifications data in that model, either, although for our complicated exteriors, the model will do piece counts, rotation (by degrees) and other joint configurations. The benefits in some aspects are remarkable: for complicated configurations, IF the contractor agrees to use our data, the pricing is absolutely nailed down, and the configurations come out like a jig-saw puzzle. the interferences are checked and remedied before they get to the job site. these are real benefits and there are cost implications. however, the use of the model does mean one more thing that has to be coordinated; additional time to reconcile the model with the 2D drawings; and someone has to monitor the model and make sure that folks have the correct version. And, the model is used only by a few tiers of subcontractors -- eventually everything comes down to two guys holding up a panel so that another guy with a power fastener can install it incorrectly because he put the wrong fastener in the gun. And, there is NOTHING a 3D model can do to fix that. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 779 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 05:30 pm:    Wayne, if GSA is using Revit, they are not using BIM, since Revit is not BIM software --Revit is 3D modeling software, and its used as another component of the documents. BIM is what Boeing is doing -- for their airplanes, not their buildings. BIM is also what telecom suppliers use, and automobiles. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 312 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 05:52 pm:    now wait. Revit does hold more data than just 3D modeling and can therefore generate things like door schedules, AND if you set up rooms etc. correctly it can tell you things about the room (objects in the room or not etc) So A perfect BIM software? No. capable of being a BIM yes. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 58 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 06:11 pm:    GSA uses Revit or other product as part of their building information modeling. At least that is what they were doing at AIA 2007 Convention in San Antonio. Disney Studios gave the most reviting (pardon the pun) demo of their revamped space mountain ride. Both were using 3D software for error trapping. The entire education session was included under the BIM umbrella. That is my story and I am sticking to it. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 780 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 08:26 pm:    I just spoke with a colleague at Disney and he said they were using 4D (that's what he called it) for their rides only, and for architecture work they are using Autocad (2D) and Speclink for their documents. GSA on their website states that they are moving from "3D to 4D to BIM" and "encouraging" their providers to use 3D. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 317 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 10:17 pm:    I think the BIM notion might become simple, if staffed correctly with a diversely talented team. But it demands a level of discipline and specificity that many practitioners don't want to dirty their hands with. For example, a room is an object with attributes, such as finish elements, and attachments, such as equipment data. The finish elements tie to specification files via reference keynotes that are hot links. The specification files in turn tie to products via hot links to product data sheets. The entire collection of files resides in a multifile BIM. The facilities manager that inherits this terrabyte of stuff can access it to see what he or she owns, where it is located, who supplied it, and what they have to do with it. If they're really anal, they'll maintain it, and it may be worth the effort. Much of this could have been accomplished 8 or 10 years ago in ADT or Triforma with a clever applications programmer. It still isn't being done much, because there are so few people who have the technical expertise to pull it off, or because it isn't worth the fees to assemble it, or because facilities managers don't care that much. But some do, and think it is worth the fee investment, and are doing it, or will soon. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 271 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 09:47 am:    BIM is supposed to be more than a 3D database with references and hot links. If it is truly multidisciplinary, the virtual object also includes structural, thermal, and perhaps even chemical properties. Under various simulations, the object, or assembly of objects, behaves like the real object that is being modeled. A BIM that includes the various characteristics related to flamability and fire resistance would be useful in the design phase to model safer buildings and during the occupancy phase to evacuate the facility during a fire and actually fight the fire. I saw simulation software for the spread and growth of building fires beginning to be developed in the mid '90s. What about acoustical simulations? Bose developed excellent software for this in the early '90s. A comprehensive BIM file would include the ability to add the necessary properties to objects to permit a proper acoustical simulation. I would concede that Revit may be "baby BIM" although I saw software that could do some of what Revit does (and has a similar interface) in the mid '80s (does anyone but me remember VersaCAD?). To properly implement even "baby BIM" can be complicated and time consuming; how will the construction industry implement real BIM? Incidentally, Ralph may remember how to make blue prints, but I have drafted with ink on linen... producing base media for facility management on a telephone company facility... Does this mean that I was BIMming back then? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 60 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 10:23 am:    Ann, I humbly sit corrected. Wayne