|Marc C Chavez|
Post Number: 311
|Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 03:19 pm: |
It doesn’t exist but you have had the brochures printed.
You need to sell software regardless of quality or need.
The “35 LEEDS points” thing was a bust and you still need to sell product.
It does neat flybys but you can’t actually build anything from it without old fashioned specs and drawings.
|Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 03:20 pm: |
|Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 03:42 pm: |
Let's keep the BIM discussion here in the Specifications thread instead in the BIM thread so the BIM thread doesn't get overcrowded.
|David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI|
Post Number: 1016
|Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 04:59 pm: |
BIM: "A solution that doesn't work, for a problem that doesn't exist."
Post Number: 316
|Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 09:47 pm: |
Guys with square black-rimmed glasses and square-toed black shoes think your software is awesome.
Software sales managers say your software has really taken hold in California.
Someone is selling plug-in components for your software to unknowing product manufacturers for amazing prices.
|John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP|
Post Number: 399
|Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 10:59 pm: |
It is now, according to the goovernator, "Kaliphonia".
And BIM will not "take off" unless it is multilingual: English (Valley dialect), Spanglish, Mandarin, Farsi and Vietnamese. BIM must adapt to the universal translator gizmo used in the original Star Trek.
|Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI|
Post Number: 860
|Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 07:39 am: |
I'll take the high risk that the item below is generally in the same realm of the others above who know far more than me. I agree with Mr. Axt, Mr. Chavez and saw what Mr. Jordan saw some 30 years ago while teaching at Cincinnati.
[I added "green" in this piece as I see it as very similar to the BIM effort]
Just ask that you "be kind" in response!
BEFORE [OR BEYOND] BIM AND “GREEN”
This is not intended as the “chicken and egg” discussion once again, but just a look-see to ascertain what is about us, and maybe what we are all about.
Being so old as to remember “blueprints” [and how to make them without white pencils!] there is a magnificent atmosphere these days that is both amazing and most confounding. What are we all about? What needs changing? Why must we change [do we really “have to?]? Putting on a “world view” eye, isn’t it true that there are still offices producing their contract documents using manual drafting on paper, and specs on a typewriter [some of you may remember them]. Are those offices “less professional”?
How about small offices [perhaps the majority] that use a computer of quite some vintage, and very aged software [the basics!] and do quite well for their clients, their project and themselves. Are they any less professional?
Why is it that while deadlines are still being met using various media, there is a stressed “demand” to be more electronic, and ever faster only to bog down in confusion, hesitation and vacillation on the part of the client? OK, let’s be crass-- is the fundamental issue with BIM to the ultimate benefit of the owner, the design professionals or the software industry?
Undoubtedly there is great advantage in that software what with the ability to wander through design concepts, virtually, in lieu of a million quickie perspective sketches. But the graphics of the program seem to only serve that aspect and have really not equally addressed the written word issue, the “technical drawings” and the incorporation of appropriate text and information in the model. A true “design” tool not to be ignored or disregarded, but overall has document production for field use been enhanced?-- and too, have the field personnel [not just the management types] been brought along so they can be attuned to and able to utilize the model data?
Seems that in lieu of one industry merely producing great new products and added capabilities, it might be good for a collective expertise and combined effort involving the design professions to express their problems and ascertain from them what NEEDS to be done, and how that might be accomplished. Professional firms cannot afford [time and money] to continually turnover their programming and production to the latest iteration of software, for the sake of some new bells and whistles-- their production, clients and deadlines are pressing enough without introducing the “new way” piggy-backed [along with new training] on the not-yet-settled old program, and trying to adjust both for proper documentation.
There are all too many problems right now in the lack of interoperability and simply “talking” to each other [and passing along documents in differing formats] to engage in further complication. Why not work on resolving this type of thing in lieu of another “arms race” to see who and how many different and parochial software programs can be produced. That solves nothing except added profits for a wide range of software providers. The design professionals then simply are left “lying in the dust” with added problems eating away at their profits.
In somewhat of a parallel mode, the tremendous pressure to “build green” is admirable in intent, but may be somewhat mis-directed. The intent is well-founded, but the ultimate goal of certification-- voluntary certification, please-- veils the basic program somewhat unsteadily. The intent has been distilled into a quest for certification and not a change in culture and professional thinking. Many manufacturing and other companies are not interested in being a good neighbor, particularly [especially if it costs them some extra money]. Many producers of construction materials carry on and have such large commitments to R&D, testing, approvals [and certifications] listing, evaluations etc. to simply exist, that they will not move to “greenware” on a voluntary basis. Product directories for green products are sparse in many places where manufacturers simply have not taken up the torch with new product lines.
Why isn’t this effort directed to modifying product selection-- on every project [and not just those seeking certification]-- on the part of design professionals [for the same climatic ends] which would place more emphasis and intensity on the manufacturers who would see their profits reduced because they lack product availability? Why overlook a stronger overall good via product selection, for the glitz of voluntary certification?
Here too, it is a private outside self-interest source that is impacting the conduct of business in the design/construction industry through a rather blatant political process. Why not a collective effort, utilizing the expertise in each area, in lieu of a single-direction private independent source who has and utilizes the politics and pressure of self-interest to achieve its very admirable goals? Instead of “embarrassing” firms into compliance, why not use tactics that are more inclusive [and positive?] to produce overall industry-wide changes?
Technology is great-- no, wonderful-- and now so inspiring in how readily available it comes to quick minds, it seems a shame to use it in odd formats instead of all encompassing and moving WITH the design/construction community and industry to the same ends. The design and construction industries are so huge and flung around the globe that the latter appears to be a far quicker and even better way. Collective and mutual understanding and programs for the common end! Not a few entities dragging the others into an as-yet undeveloped futuristic assemblage.
Not calling these fads, or trying to discredit them. Just seems the tactics in place warrant re-consideration and perhaps adjusting things to be even better and more productive.