Who should decide on BIM content specification? The Architect? The Manufacturer? I don’t care what either of you want! I need…

OK, so maybe the need for BIM content is still a new concept to some people out there, but for many of us however, we have moved onto questions about what it should look like, what it should contain, and what format those containers use. In that regard, we are forever hearing discussions/arguments between designers and manufacturers about how BIM content should look and what information it should contain. We have competing protocols and design guides being promoted in different market sectors and territories, to gain the upper hand and become THE standard.

But perhaps this is all irrelevant. I will tell anyone that sits still long enough to listen to me, that we will know when BIM has been successful, when we all stop talking about it. When we go back to designing and delivering projects, without a press release on the BIM aspects of it. I don’t believe that this tipping point can happen until the FM guy starts to expect BIM deliverables and engages meaningfully in the upfront information specification for the long-term advantage of the asset, and not just pretty visuals, installation details and product catalogues.

When we look at BIM from that perspective, and we accept the estimates that CAPEX only accounts for 25% of the total asset costs (TOTEX), whilst OPEX accounts for the remaining 75%, then should we not ask the FM guy to help define the BIM content specification? After all, he is going to be dealing with it for a lot longer than the designer or contractor.

At BCS Europe (Building Content Summit) in Aarhus, Denmark – 3 – 4 October, speakers will attempt to broaden the horizon of the discussion and to offer new perspectives on what should go into our models, in what format, and by whom.

Translate »