The BIM Episodes
Exploring the boundaries of Building Information Modelling
We all may have read various definitions of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and most do not provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolving term. This article is no different; it is yet another attempt to define and understand the ever changing boundaries of the BIM concept as well as the ever expanding digital landscape of Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry. What I hope to achieve in these blog episodes (posts) is some coverage of BIM’s conceptual and practical bases. I have already pre-written a few and will be posting them consecutively.
Episode1: Introduction
Part A: BIM boundaries
The boundaries of Building Information Modelling as a term-definition, set of technologies and group of processes is fast changing even before being widely adopted by the industry. As a term, BIM seems to have somehow stabilised now (see section 2) but as a set of technologies/processes, its boundaries are rapidly expanding. This boundary expansion (and sometimes mutation) is disconcerting in several ways as BIM continues to lack an agreed definition, process maps and regulatory frameworks. However, these concerns are offset by sheer potentials of BIM (as an integrated process) to act as a catalyst for change [1] poised to reduce industry’s fragmentation [2], improve its efficiency/effectiveness [3] and lower its high costs of inadequate interoperability [4].
This episode is available in other languages. For a list of all translated episodes, pleaser refer to http://www.bimthinkspace.com/translations.html. The original English version continues below:
Part B: The Term itself
For academic researcher, BIM is a new term representing concepts that are not. To them, Building Information Modelling and the other competing terms embody many of the solutions proposed by academia [5] for a long time. For other industry stakeholders (like designers, engineers, clients, construction companies, facility managers, governments...) BIM is also a new term but represents the commercial maturity and availability of the same research concepts. BIM’s prominence, as a re-emerging concept, is being fuelled by the increasing availability of processing power, maturing applications, interoperability discussions (IAI, NIST and GSA) and proactive regulatory frameworks [6]
BIM, how to read the term:
Building: a structure [7], an enclosed space, a constructed environment…
Information: an organised set of data: meaningful, actionable
Modelling: shaping, forming, presenting, scoping…
To best understand this inadequate array of meanings, let’s flip the order of the words:
Figure 1.1: BIM equals MIB
The conceptual frameworks of Building Information Modelling stems from the mid 1980’s (a topic to be visited in later post) but the term itself is a recent incarnation. My previous attempts to trace BIM yielded an interesting yet lengthy discussion by Jerry Liaserin [8] and his readers. In Comparing Pommes and Naranjas, Jerry provides a sound argument for the acceptance of the term/acronym as is because of its adoption by industry’s major CAD developers. (I have compiled the whole discussion in 25 pages; let me know if you’d like it emailed to you).
As an acronym, BIM appears to be gradually wining over many competing terms representing mainly similar concepts. Although some researchers [9] attempted to differentiate between them, their extensively overlapping boundaries render the search for their uniqueness somehow unattainable. I do not claim that all these definitions represent the same exact concepts, building’s lifecycle stage or expected deliverables but I do claim such comparison /contrast to be an intellectual extravagance.
Figure 1.2: Term Soup
To be continued; next Episode will focus on Modelling within Building Information Modelling.
References:
[1] Bernstein, P. (2005) Integrated Practice: It’s Not Just About the Technology, http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek05/tw0930/tw0930bp_notjusttech.cfm accessed December 5, 2005
[2] Dawson, A.(Ed.) (2004) The Building Technology and Construction Industry Technology Roadmap Report, Collaborative Working In Consortium (CWIC), Melbourne, pp. 13, 32
[3] Hampson, K. and Brandon, P. (2004) Construction 2020: A Vision of Australia's Property and Construction Industry Report, CRC Construction Innovation, Australia, pp. 20
[4] National Institute of Standards and Technology (2004), “Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry”, Maryland, United States
[5] Khemlani, L. (2005) Academic Research in Architectural Computing, http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/ArchComputingResearch.htm , accessed December 1, 2005
[6] Newton, R. S. (2005) AISC Updates Contract Standards to Reflect Model-Based Structural Engineering, http://aecnews.com/articles/1056.aspx , accessed December 4, 2005
[7] Oxford English Dictionary
[8] Liaserin, J. (2002), Comparing Pommes and Naranjas, http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue15/feature01.php , accessed November 12, 2005
[9] Lee, A., Wu, S., Marshall-Ponting, A., Aouad, G., Cooper, R., Tah, J. H. M., Abbott, C. and Barrett, P. S. (2005) nD Modelling Roadmap: A Vision for nD-Enabled Construction, University of Salford, Salford, p. 96
