BIM is a process – not a tool. Revit, Bentley Architecture, ArchiCAD and others are BIM tools. This is fairly common knowledge now. Most of those that embrace BIM realize that the change is not just the adoption of a new software platform. It is a change to the fabric of a practice. The promise of BIM is that the models become more and more intelligent as they move through the design process.
With that in mind – why aren’t we sharing BIM models as the promise of BIM expands. There are many who actually fear the concept of someone taking their model files. What might they do with them? What might they find out about our ability in BIM?
Would you be open to just passing your model file around? Would you send it to others without a disclaimer? What are the issues holding you back?
Let me know by making a comment below.
We share. We share with other project members. The caveat is (as with most companies) that if any discrepancies appear, the Contract Document “paper” plans take precedent.
The problem I see with this, is that it gives the modeler an “out.” If you don’t have time to investigate a complicated condition, you can just have minimal lines on paper and move on.
At some point in the project SOMEONE will have to address the issue. I would like to see a time when the MODEL takes precedent over “paper” in a discrepancy. What better way to get a comprehensive answer about a condition than to investigate a data rich, dimensionally accurate digital representation of that condition? A physical mock-up for sure, but how much more valuable is a virtual mock-up? Hmmmm, I feel a blog post coming…
Your question comes at an interesting time in that just this morning I posted a query on the Autodesk Revit forum asking for public-domain CD sets done in Revit. I’m looking for this to use as part of persuading our leadership to at long last take the Revit plunge. I’d like to show them it can be done, how it looks printed (how long that takes), how easy or hard it is to edit, and whether or not rendering is possible without tieing up a machine for hours.
I would think that most architects would be hesitant to share complete models and think that Autodesk should have some available, created by a real architect for an imaginary project.
My perspective is a little unique in that my firm is a full service A/E firm so we don’t really concern ourselves with sharing models between disciplines, although I will say that sharing between disciplines is crucial to our success. We currently have 5 large buildings under construction as part of two separate jobs, both are design/build. The first project we waited until after releasing CDs to let the contractors have access to our models. And after the design side was clash free, we let the sub-contractors access the models to route the same way. They of course made changes and we had to go through the whole process of clash detection all over again with them. However, because changes were done to layout of ducts, lights, sprinklers etc, after issue for construction, the model trumped prints.
The second project we brought the subs in during design and gave them access to the models when we were 90% done with design, letting them know it was preliminary. We continued to update our model with our drawings and actually gave them the whole building in BIM before we issued documents for construction. This allowed the subs to start working on their coordination models earlier. Yes the subs had to produce models, and share them as well, and were responsible for maintaining them throughout construction to produce the as-built BIM model, all the while ensuring they are clash free. As a result of free flowing of information back and forth the subs had a better understanding of the project earlier on and the whole construction has gone far smoother and faster than anyone has anticipated. Construction is still underway but proceeding at break-neck speeds compared to traditional paper-only drawings.
In my opinion the models are king. Like Erik said, if you can coordinate in 3D, do it. The modeling requirement for this job was anything over 1 1/2″ had to be included. Some problems arose with this though as some items are means and methods of construction, such as exact stud placement, or vertical reinforcing in CMU. BIM is a great tool, especially when open communication lets it flourish, but it is not an alternative for good construction know-how. If you have a bad contractor, all the 3D coordination in the world won’t help.
As a multi discipline company we share models internally with no problem but we are hesitant about sharing models with external consultants because we have no way of protecting our intellectual data. Does anyone know if Autodesk are looking into ways of being able to lock out certain elements such as families, shared parameters, material etc? I know of API’s that strip out models but it would be easier if there was a locking menu within Revit that you just tick the boxes of the elements that you would like locked.
I told you a felt a blog post coming…
its at http://whosafraidofthebigbadbim.blogspot.com/2010/09/in-event-of-discrepancy.html
Thanks for the inspiration.
For Intellectual Property protection, if you’re talking about people stealing your well-constructed Revit families and using them, you have none. But really, you never did, even with FlatCAD, even if you issued PDF or DWF only, there’s always a way for a determined user to get at your titleblock, and other content. If you’re talking about being able to control model provenence, and legally isolate alterations from your own liability, the tools are available, through a view contractual waver documents, and tools like creating a hash of the issued design model that confirms the unchaged nature of the file. If someone comes back with construction issues on a model file that doesn’t match the issued CRC or MD5 hash, you can prove that the file has been altered from what was issued.