463

BIM’s Seven Deadly SinsDominik Holzer

issue 04, volume 09international journal of architectural computing

464

BIM’s Seven Deadly SinsDominik Holzer

Abstract

This paper aims at exposing seven prevailing problems that haveemerged in the uptake of Building Information Modelling (BIM) indesign practice.The paper provides a reality check between an idealisticview on BIM and the way it is currently applied in daily use. In order toreflect on the issues at hand, the author draws from three years ofdoctoral research in multidisciplinary design collaboration, followed bymore than two years experience as Design Technology director in alarge scale architecture practice. In addition to the above, his currentrole as the chair of the BIM and IPD Steering Group of the AustralianInstitute of Architects and Consult Australia exposes the author to abroad range of cultural implications of BIM.The findings presented hereillustrate that, despite major advances in the development of BIM, thereare predominantly cultural roadblocks to its implementation in practice.

1. INTRODUCTION

Deeply rooted in various areas of research and development incomputational design over the past 20-30 years [1], BIM starts to becomecommonplace in everyday building practice [2]. Professionals from a diverserange of backgrounds in the building industry, such as architects, engineers,or contractors, have high expectations towards BIM for efficiency gains andfor more integrated collaboration with their partners. As part of theindustry’s transition from CAD to BIM, we currently witness a fundamentalshift in the way building projects are conceived and delivered.This paperacknowledges the process change in the industry that is triggered throughBIM, and it attempts to take a critical standpoint by analysing the prevailingmisconceptions and problem areas the implementation of BIM encountersin practice.

The ‘seven deadly sins’ as presented in this paper are preceded byvarious critical reflections on the uptake of computationally assisted designin practice [3], [4], [5], [6].The strongest alignment between the purpose ofthis paper and examples in previous literature can be found with thedescriptions of CAAD’s seven deadly sins [4] as well as CAAD’s sevenarguable virtues [7].This paper does not attempt to compare the sins orvirtues of CAD with those of BIM; instead the issues exposed hererepresent problems specific to BIM implementation in current architecturalpractice.

The accounts provided here are based on the following sources:• A three year, government funded research project (Delivering

Digital Architecture in Australia) completed by the author as mainresearcher, forming the basis of his PhD on design collaboration.

• A series of four public BIM forums (two of which facilitated by theauthor) with leading industry experts; resulting in the publication ofa national report titled: BIM in Australia 2010 [8]

• an industry survey undertaken with 12 Australian architecturefirms, 18 engineering consultants (structural and mechanical) and 5Australian contractors.

• BIM clauses in about 20-25 project briefs that were reviewed bythe author over the past year in his role as Design TechnologyDirector of a large Australian architecture firm.

2. SEVEN SINS IN IMPLEMENTING BIM

The seven sins described here are listed in no particular order. It is notclaimed that sins related to the implementation of BIM are limited to thenumber of seven.Those sins discussed here represent some of the mostcommon examples the author has experienced and witnessed in hispractice work.The author acknowledges the specific geographical context(Australia) that provides the background to the issues alluded to in this

465BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

paper. In awareness of global trends related to BIM, the author is convincedthat the sins listed here defy local boundaries and that they are likely to befound in other countries where BIM gets implemented.The sins commonlycommitted in the implementation of BIM will see variations over time as theindustry uptake progresses and as BIM methods will take hold of widerparts of planning, design and operation of buildings.

2.1.Technocentricity – focus on software instead of designculture

BIM is often misconceived as being a new version of what the industryassociates with CAD and its uptake over the past two to three decades.Those who witnessed the transition from manual drafting processes toCAD about 20-25 years ago will have seen how CAD in architecturalpractice was predominantly used to replicate drafting and visualisationprocesses which previously were done manually. CAD helped designers tocarry out these processes on the computer for higher speed, accuracy andfor photo-realistic visualisation. For most users, technology was the driverto facilitate this change and the computer was the conduit for the changeto happen.There are parallels in the transition from manual work to CADand the move from CAD to BIM, but some fundamental differences alsoexist. One of those differences is that a technology-centric view on BIM(which is apparent in those practices who believe that implementing it isabout implementing new software) will inevitably lead to fundamentalproblems in understanding BIM as a method for conceiving buildings in thefirst place.

As stated by Randy Deutsch [9], a highly regarded BIM critic in the US,BIM processes do not simply replicate CAD processes more effectivelyusing 3D software. BIM is about an entire process change that impactsnearly all activities related to the planning, delivery and operation ofbuildings on a social, a business and even a political level. Further, BIMallows users to engage the building supply chain from the inception stageto its operation and demolition in an unprecedented manner. Illustrated byLarry Downes [10] in his ‘Law of Disruption’ graph [Figure 1], thetechnological aspect of process change undergoes the most radicaltransformation over time.

Moving to BIM necessitates profound changes in common workprocesses inter-organisationally as well as intra-organisationally. Changesrelated to staffing, training, project team configuration and projectinfrastructure impact previously established processes and they may evenaffect the entire business model of a practice.

When working in BIM on projects, those using it need to define newresponsibilities, and possibly even new roles, which include the setup ofoffice BIM standards, the management BIM models, the creation of specificBIM model content for libraries and families, and protocols for the

466 Dominik Holzer

coordination of multi-disciplinary BIM models. On a project team (social)level, it is advisable to include at least one member who possesses goodBIM model management skills to coordinate those contributing to theshared model.

On a cultural and political level, when BIM gets introduced to a practicesome staff will find it easier than others to embrace the new possibilities ithas to offer.A practice’s leadership is well advised to consider those whowill be taken out of their comfort zone and who will be anxious about thechanges BIM may bring to their work. Project architects or engineers whotraditionally were used to open up a CAD file to review and finalise changeswill find it much more difficult to get direct access to the documentationoutput in the context of BIM models.

2.2.Ambiguity

During the Australian industry forums on BIM (as mentioned in theintroduction), architects, engineers and contractors agreed that one of themajor hindering factors in the adoption of BIM in design practice is the highlevel of ambiguity about the range of services it constitutes [8]. Lacking adifferentiated view on the value BIM adds to projects, clients are likely to bereluctant to compensate their consultants for BIM related services. BIMproponents continuously highlight the benefit it provides to designers,design consultants and contractors during all stages of design and beyond.At the same time, they appropriate many aspects of computational designthat were initially not directly related to BIM, to better market the conceptof BIM and its overarching capacity to inform the way we conceive,construct, and manage buildings. Design computation processes that help

� Figure 1: Larry Downes, Law of

Disruption.

467BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

architects and engineers to explore formal topologies, to resolve complexsystems, and to rationalize geometry are increasingly being labeled with aBIM tag [11].At the same time, saleable acronyms for simplifying anddescribing specific aspects of BIM become ever more widespread in theindustry. Such acronyms include: 4D BIM for construction scheduling, 5DBIM for costing, 6D BIM for environmentally sustainable design and 7D BIMfor as-built information that feeds into Facility Management.

Less well-informed users may be tempted to associate BIM witheverything interesting one could achieve in architecture with the help ofcomputational design.This is not helped by the fact that the term “BuildingInformation Modeling” is general in nature and it could be used to describeany activity that involves 3D architectural design.The industry lacks specificdefinitions of distinct BIM services as they are emerging in practice (with anassociated spectrum of fees). BIM users experience an overall increase ofthe interfacing capability between multiple, previously segregated, areas ofcomputational design. BIM’s potential for linking intelligent buildinginformation through various types of enquiry and during various stages ofdesign should prompt users to define a spectrum of BIM related activities. Ifthose who design and deliver BIM manage to catalogue and profile therange of services they offer, they allow their clients to understand the basedeliverables, as well as the added value, of specific services in BIM. Figure 2provides an overview of potential services that form part of a BIMSpectrum which the author is currently proposing to his design practice forconsideration and selection.

Another crucial aspect to establishing a firm’s distinct BIM profile, is theneed to understand the transitions between the divergent, open-ended, andoften erratic processes of design exploration, the more convergentprocesses of assembling and sharing intelligent geometrical objects in 3D,

� Figure 2:Author, Illustrating 25

services that may form part of a

practice’s BIM spectrum.

468 Dominik Holzer

and the creation of shop-drawings for construction and beyond.Theidentification and implementation of such ‘digital ecologies’ [Figure 3] canassist designers and their teams to develop a specific design signature.Whenconsidering software use that feeds into digital ecologies, architects firstmap out the multi-facetted flow of information related to their designthinking, their planning and documentation processes, and their informationoutput to other stakeholders.

With a clear understanding of the design deliverables, the most appropriaterange of software to assist with them, and the interoperability between thevarious tools applied, BIMs becomes a hub for information exchange duringthe planning phase of a project and beyond. Mapping out digital ecologieshelps designers and consultants to move with confidence betweendedicated (but sometimes narrowly focused) design tasks, and thoseprocesses that promise to strengthen design delivery across the wholeproject team.

2.3. Elision

One diagram in particular has been central to propagating the benefits andeffects of BIM in the building industry. It is a graph created published by theAmerican Institute of Architects via one of their members, HOK’s CEOPatrick MacLeamy [12]. In the graph, MacLeamy plots effort/effect against.time to then illustrate the difference of the effort/effect graph over time in apre and post BIM scenario. One curve shows the main effort in pre-BIMtimes mainly within the advanced design stages and procurement.With theuse of BIM that curve is shifted to the left towards the earlier design stages,where changes are easier, and less costly, to accommodate.The message isclear and the diagram has enjoyed extensive exposure both in publications,as well as in numerous BIM presentations, adding to its cultural significanceover the past five years. It is used as reference to promote the usefulness of

469BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

� Figure 3:A typical digital software

ecology based on a commercial tower

project

BIM to a variety of stakeholders such as architects, engineers, projectmanagers and BIM software vendors.

Overall, the graph [Figure 4] is a positive contribution to thepropagation of BIM in the industry as it communicates in very basic termswhat can be achieved through BIM and it highlights the inefficiencies of pre-BIM work methods. It is assumed in this paper that MacLeamy’s goal was toachieve the above. MacLeamy could not foresee or influence the dynamicthe diagram has taken since its publication, fostered by those who merelyuse it to highlight the benefits of BIM without scrutinising its content.Withseveral years gone by since the graph was first published in 2005, BIMuptake in the industry has advanced significantly.

When considering the MacLeamy diagram in retrospect and in more detail,it seems to present processes in the uptake of BIM in an overly simplisticmanner. Several researchers have already pointed out deficiencies of thediagram such as changes through BIM on ‘Operation’ [13], the actualdistribution of the ‘Effort/Effect’ curve [14] or the lack of critical thoughtrelated to its impact on design quality [15]. Operational aspects and avariation of the distribution of the effort/effect curve are also highlighted inFigure 5, which presents an effort/effect curve based on the experience ofthe Australian architecture firm Rice Daubney.

In his original graph, MacLeamy shifts the curve denoting maininvestment or effort to the left, but he does not consider that, by doing so,the project duration beyond procurement is likely to diminish.This occursdue to added benefits during construction where the contractor can rely ona better integrated documentation set with clashes resolved prior to goingon site. Upon examination of the graph, questions emerge as to how farMacLeamy bases the graduation of its curves merely on informalobservations at work, or on any quantifiable data from within design

470 Dominik Holzer

� Figure 4: Patrick MacLeamy,

AIA/HOK, Effort/Effect over time. BIM

vs. traditional approach.

practice. In case of the former, the significance of the diagram is likely to beoverstated by its users. In the case of the latter one should question thevalidity of that data used to produce it. Industry feedback exposes thatpractitioners are likely to experience an effort curve with a less abruptfinish than shown by MacLeamy and with a slight increase at the start ofeach project phase [14].Architects and their consultants have to gear upmuch earlier in conceptual design. Darren Tims from Rice Daubney presentsthis as a positive development as he sees it as ultimately leading to betterdesign.Tims argues that the uncertainties related to the adoption of BIMforce consultants to take on more risk from a business perspective.

The MacLeamy graph is indifferent regarding who benefits from, or pays for,the change in effort achieved through BIM. If project teams are able tointegrate construction knowledge into design, who is doing the work, andwho benefits most from it? In depth quantitative studies [16], [17] withdesign practitioners, consultants, contractors and owner/operators hint inthe direction that the beneficiaries are mainly the clients and contractors.On the other hand, it is mainly the architects and the mechanical engineerswho increasingly have to take over coordination that would usually be takenon by the contractors as well as sub-contractors.

As a simple rule, the smarter the BIM (or the assembly of several BIMs),the more useful information it will contain specific to each of itscontributors. In order to achieve a high level of usefulness, that informationneeds to be managed, coordinated and associated with individual objects inthe BIM.The level of development of a highly informed BIM will, by nature,depend on input from various stakeholders.An open dialogue is requiredwhere those stakeholders resolve what kind of information the BIM shouldcontain and who is responsible for adding it (and for setting up intelligentfilters for sorting it).Any effort in doing so needs to be communicatedupfront between the client, the contractor, and the consultants in order to

� Figure 5: Darren Tims of Rice

Daubney: Interpretation of the

MacLeamy graph based on real life

data.

471BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

secure appropriate financial compensation.This is the only way a valideffort/effect curve can be established for each contributing party.

2.4. Hypocrisy – the IPD excuse

BIM by itself makes little sense in design practice. Integrated ProjectDelivery (IPD) is hailed as BIM’s twin sister as it associates projectprocurement and a predefined partnership among collaborators with theappropriation of design data through BIM [18]. IPD allows us to tap into thepotential BIM has to offer, based on procurement and collaborationprinciples that foster teamwork rather than litigation. However, IPD is barelyapplied to projects yet.The effort needed to achieve pure IPD is prohibitiveto the point that the building industry globally is yet to see a mainstreamadoption by project teams in practice. Paradoxically, the mention of IPD hascurrently either become an excuse to cover for the shortcomings of BIM orit is used as buzz-word by teams who claim to ‘do’ IPD simply because theyshare their model information using coordination software such asNavisworksTM or SolibriTM.To this point, the discourse about IPD in practicehas predominantly been led by industry bodies and software vendors. Theytry to sell an idea that in theory makes sense, but hits substantialroadblocks in practice. Such an idealistic introduction suffers from a lack ofcritical scrutiny that does justice to IPD’s cultural significance. IPD requiresthe upfront resolution of cultural, political, legal and business related aspectsof architectural design and delivery in order to pave the way for itsimplementation.

From a theoretical perspective, the idea of an integrated BuildingInformation Model is valid.The concept of BIM in general considers theentire building supply chain (from a management, ecology, and a stakeholderperspective) and the entire building lifecycle (from a time and sustainabilityperspective).The reason why BIM by itself makes limited sense in practice isthe clash between well established ways of procuring building projects(predominantly considering procurement through competitive tendering),and the contractual/collaboration specific agreements required to derivereal benefits from BIM. Users can only get substantial value out of BIM ifthey share information related to a project’s delivery across the entireproject team as early as possible. Comparing this aspiration with the typicalmeans by which project teams are organised at present, a dilemma becomesevident.The building industry operates predominantly within the system ofdesign-bid-build, where the mentality of involved parties is in many ways riskaverse, focused on individual participants’ benefits, and ultimately litigious innature.

Putting the project and the team before one’s own interests is a conceptthat may not appeal to everyone in an industry where the playerstraditionally operate with a strong focus on their own organisation. IPD isnot simply about avoiding conflicts, but is a collaboration-based framework

472 Dominik Holzer

that allows teams to resolve conflicts amicably and in a short matter oftime, once they arise

In order to derive true value out of BIM through IPD, a mindset isrequired, where collaborating partners put stronger emphasis on theproject and the intra-organisational team – instead of the immediateinterests of their own organisation.This process is complicated by the factthat members constituting the project team are often not yet selected atthe start, where they would have the greatest impact on the project. Havingothers on board in decision making processes during the early design stagesmay be hard to accept for architects, who are often skeptical of the value ofcontractor involvement at the outset.Teams who take IPD seriously willfirst engage in profound discussions about intellectual property, professionalindemnity (and related insurances), collaboration culture, model audit trails,and the sharing of risk among various project partners including the client.IPD projects therefore require substantial buy-in from clients whoultimately carry the risk for deciding on the procurement type of theirprojects and who are the most vulnerable party in the early days of IPDstyle collaboration.

2.5. Delusion – asking for 2D while requiring 3D work

Despite the continuous development and industry uptake of BIM over thepast 8-10 years, the ultimate deliverables for designers still remain thesubmission of 2D documentation.While the end product has stayed thesame, the means of achieving it have changed drastically.

A major part of the author’s responsibility as Design Technology directorat a large scale architecture firm is to review BIM deliverables in projectbriefs and ‘Request for Proposal’ documents. In doing so, the author hasbeen exposed to approximately 25 of such documents over the past year.One aspect that most of those documents have in common is that clientsask for 2D documentation deliverables only, while demanding BIM to beimplemented at the same time for the coordination of building information.While the fees remain based on the provision of 2D documents, the focuson 2D is misleading. It carries with it a range of hidden deliverables andadditional work by consultants.They often need to coordinate their 3D BIMwork to a level far exceeding their traditional 2D deliverables, in order toachieve a set of high-quality 2D documents.

Architects think and develop their ideas spatially; they are using 2Dplans/sections as ‘temporary’ abstractions of their ideas in order to simplifytheir concepts and communicate them to other design partners and thebuilder.We currently experience a paradox episode in the use of BIM:Consultants still need to abstract the ‘smart 3D assemblies’ fromcoordinated BIM models into 2D representations in order to communicatedesign intent. In addition, we cannot rely on actual 3D constructioninformation when communicating with builders, as they base their work on

473BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

‘traditional’ 2D plans and sections.A good portion of relevant buildinginformation never gets modeled when considering a level of detail in themagnitude of 1:20 and below.At that scale communication of intent caneasier be handled in 2D compared to the effort that would be required toproduce the same level of information in 3D and in consideration of file-sizeand current computing power to manipulate/visualise a large number ofdetailed 3D information.

Overall, the industry seems to accept the 3D to 2D abstraction method.Apart from a small number of (often experimental) examples [19], [20]automated manufacture and a direct transition from BIM to built artifact isnot commonplace as mainstream means of delivery. Consultant agreementsonly refer to 2D documents as the primary deliverables for tender andconstruction submission.This approach is regularly combined with clausesprompting all consultants to use BIM software for team-internalcoordination purposes only, excluding the use of BIM for contractor orclient coordination. Based on requests in project briefs, collaboratingconsultants typically agree to a minimum level of detail required to achieve2D documentation at the outset of a project.The deeper a collaboratingteam moves into the project, the less likely they are able to ignore the needto fully resolve coordination issues in 3D.The entire team is relying on theaccuracy and current status of each other’s model.The danger related tothis scenario is that cross-referencing milestone 2D drawings occurs lessfrequently in BIM and that documentation sets quickly become outdated.Problems arise when clients, project managers or even contractors demand2D output from BIM models for tenders to be on par with constructionissue status.The level of detail required for coordinating the positioning andvisualisation of all fixtures and mechanical units in their final locations canprotract the documentation process substantially.With a requirement forarchitects to show consultants’ design data as part of their 2D documents(e.g. in the Reflected Ceiling Plans) they need to certify that their drawingsare fully coordinated. In most cases this can only efficiently be achieved bycoordinating the BIM data from all relevant stakeholders and by resolvingclashes as they occur in 3D. Ultimately, sound 2D deliverables based on BIMcan only be achieved through detailed 3D coordination. No matter what thecontract says, there is still client and inter-consultant expectations aboutwhat a BIM model should offer. Designers and consultants can get caught upby ill-defined or misinterpreted deliverables and they need to protect theirinterests by rethinking how to itemise their fee proposals.Thoseimplementing BIM currently see a new type of document, the ‘ProjectExecution Plan’ [21], emerging in the building industry that addresses thechallenges mentioned above and that complements contractual agreements.It aims at clarifying the responsibilities and accountabilities in the delivery ofBIM content for each contributing party for each project stage. In additionto providing a procedural guideline for the exchange of BIM related project

474 Dominik Holzer

information, Project Execution Plans also include specific role descriptionsand duties for individual model managers and the overall model coordinator.Further, Project Execution Plans are used to communicate to thecontractors and clients what will be achieved / delivered through BIM, basedon the specific intent and remuneration dealt with in the contract.

2.6. Diffidence – denying the need for process change

When adopting BIM, the question arises how high a practice should aim insubscribing to new and innovative methods facilitated by BIM. How shouldone stage a transition from established (mostly CAD based) processes andprotocols to becoming mature and proficient users (or even leaders) of BIMmethods? The effects of BIM on any established work methods aredisruptive by nature.The process change intrinsic to BIM implementation issubstantial, and it requires a venturous mindset plus the willingness to takerisks by a practice’s leadership in order to succeed. A step by stepapproach with small increments will in many ways not suffice to enable truechange. Some of the requirements for change when implementing BIM are:

• substantial up-front cost for purchasing BIM software licenses.• substantial up-front cost upgrading computer hardware and

network capability.• substantial up-front cost for training staff.Some less obvious (but necessary) requirements include the:• setup of internal BIM standards (most likely little related to existing

CAD standards).• cultivation of a solid BIM content library (substantial effort/cost to

establish).• recruitment of BIM knowledgeable staff (and laying off staff who

will not or cannot commit).These efforts provide a practice with a foundation for the soundimplementation of BIM on projects and they will allow the practice torespond to expectations by clients, consultants and contractors.

Still, there is more a practice needs to do. Delivering 2D documentationbased on 3D models is only one element within an entire range of possibleservices related to BIM. Recent project briefs by clients and contractorsshow that deliverables for architects (and others) are undergoing majorchanges in the current market place. If the provision of high qualitydocumentation (and in some cases supervision on site) was the end-goal ina consultant’s traditional deliverables, they currently see an entire newspectrum of services requested by clients. 3D Massing, Solar Studies, ModelCoordination, Clash Detection, BIM Management,Virtual Walk-Throughs,Occupants’ Training, Construction Scheduling, and Facilities Management arejust a few examples. Most of these services have little to no precedencecompared to the services architects and engineers are used to providing.Further, clients seem to expect their consultants to provide them for no

475BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

additional fee.A first reaction for consultants who are caught up in thisscenario may therefore be to dismiss the unfamiliar and focus on their firm’s‘core capabilities’.

In 2010 the author conducted an industry study for his design practicewhere BIM leaders of about 40 Australian architecture, engineering andconstruction firms were interviewed.The study revealed that a majority ofthose interviewed had been engaged with BIM for more than two years.Thestudy further illustrated challenges for BIM enabled practices tocomplement their implementation efforts with a specific BIM profile thatreflects their in-house skill level to distinguish them from others.Respondents highlighted that designers and their consultants need tobecome smart about how they engage BIM on a variety of design, deliveryand operation/maintenance related processes.This can occur in parallel tobuilding up a firm’s core modelling capability.

Parts of the process change through BIM are achieved by makingdecisions earlier on in the design process. Designers need to agree how toadvance design and documentation with stronger involvement of othercollaborators such as the engineers, the QS or the contractors. It istherefore important to establish a new dialogue and provide decisionmakers with direct access to the BIM model (even though they may notwish to manipulate the model themselves). This is an important step inorder to make decision makers on projects understand that changes to thedocumentation output cannot always be accommodated with the sameimmediacy as with 2D documentation; modeling in BIM relies on a moreintricate set of dependencies.

2.7. Monodisciplinarity – design exploration in professional silos

Current BIM tools still barely support early design collaboration acrossvarious disciplines.The predominant part of BIM research and developmentaddresses intra-disciplinary concerns as well as object model coordinationacross disciplines in the advanced design stages. Considering the type ofwork currently supported by the main BIM software platform, users witnessa strong push by software providers to create all-round tools that canassist designers in their creative processes from early conceptual design allthe way to the delivery of projects. Identified as a shortcoming in BIM [22],mass modelling and conceptual design has seen particular progress over thepast years with numerous tools being developed that allow users to overlayand interface virtual concept models with basic building performancefeedback.

476 Dominik Holzer

In the light of the above, the California Council of the American Institute ofArchitects addresses the interfacing potential we see as part of IntegratedProject Delivery (IPD).They changed the definition of their traditional earlydesign stages (pre-Design, Schematic Design and Design Development) into‘Conceptualization’ Criteria Desigin and Detailed Design, [Figure 6]. Inparticular the mention of ‘Criteria Design’ offers a view into a future wherecollaborators use BIM models to quickly test and evaluate various designoptions across disciplines.The AIA states [18]:

“During this period, different options are evaluated and tested. In aproject using Building Information Modeling, the model can be usedto test “what if” scenarios and determine what the team willaccomplish.”

Architects typically assume that their capability to explore in early stagedesign is constrained by consultants who only want to model and analyse asfew options as possible. This attitude may provide a reason for designers tobe suspicious about collaborating through BIM early on.Then again, it isbarely possible to encounter software solutions suited to facilitate decisionmaking across collaborating disciplines who wish to quickly evaluatemultiple design options, infused by (close to) real time performancefeedback. BIM models containing detailed descriptions of building objectsare in most cases too ‘information-rich’ to become useful during criteriadesign, where constant changes occur.

Designers, consultants and the contractor operate in an asynchronousmanner.There is usually a time-lag between design changes proposed by thearchitect, the response from the engineers who run their analysis and theinterpretation of the design information by the contractor. Due totraditional project setup, consultants and contractors are often excludedfrom early stage decision making.They are brought on board of the designteam in the more advanced stages of planning.The increasing availability ofubiquitous processing power through cloud computing is likely to allowconsultants and contractors to speed up delivery and to diminish the lagbetween design and performance checks.

� Figure 6:AIA California Council,

comparing project phases between

traditional and integrated delivery.

477BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

Collaborators on design projects require computational frameworks thatallow for a more instant transition between conceptual design and analysismodels (such as those facilitated through the cloud) while including easilycomprehensible visualisation capabilities for decision support. Suchframeworks would alleviate the burden of remodeling and setting upseparate simulation runs by consultants. In order to overcome the differentnotations and profession-specific geometry definitions, such frameworkswould also need to include smart filters that allow a range of diversesimulation runs to access different semantic representations of the samegeometric entities.

3. CONCLUSIONS

The development of BIM is making strong progress, driven by its increasinguptake in the industry.With BIM capabilities becoming broader, BIM userswitness the challenges associated with its implementation becoming broaderas well.The seven sins of BIM implementation, as listed in this paper, canpresent significant impediments in its uptake.At the same time, none of thesins are insurmountable. Few of them (if any) are rooted in misconceptionson a technological side. In many cases, technological advances and theproliferation of software have driven the uptake of BIM in architecturalpractice rather than a discourse about its cultural implications. Most sinsdescribed here occur due to the incapacity or the unwillingness ofpractitioners in design and construction to swiftly adopt the advantages BIMhas to offer due to cultural reasons.The building industry is more likely toovercome this problem by increasing the dialogue with those involved indelivering BIM projects and by focusing on the cultural (and political)impediments that hold them back. If academic research has momentarilytaken a backseat while practice has taken the lead in pushing BIM on atechnical level, we may well witness academia re-engaging the BIM debateon a broader, cultural level. Such feedback from academia may prove pivotalfor streamlining the social and process-driven BIM activities designers, theirconsultants and the contractors engage in.Architects, their consultants andcontractors who use BIM will continue to discover and debate more suchsins. Ultimately, they will more likely succeed in managing the challengesahead of them if they engage in close collaboration between academic andpractice based research.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the support received by BVNArchitecture, the Spatial Information Architecture Lab at RMIT UniversityMelbourne, and Darren Tims at Rice Daubney.

478 Dominik Holzer

References1. Mark, E. Gross, M. and Goldschmidt, G.,A Perspective on Computer Aided

Design after Four Decades, Architecture in Computro [26th eCAADe ConferenceProceedings],Antwerpen, 2008.

2. Mitchell, B.,Thinking in BIM, Architectural Transformations via BIM, a+u,A+UPublishing,Tokyo, 2009.

3. Akin, O. and Anadol, Z.,What’s wrong with CAD?, 4th International Symposium onSystems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics, Baden-Baden, 1993.

4. Maver,T.W., CAAD’s Seven Deadly Sins, CAAD Future Proceedings, Singapore, 1995.

5. Gero, J. S.,Advances in IT for building design, in: M Anson, J. Ko and E. Lam (eds),Advances in Building Technology, Elsevier,Amsterdam, 2002.

6. Kvan,T.The dual heritage of CAAD research, International Journal of ArchitecturalComputing, vol.2, iss.1, 2004.

7. Koutamanis,A., CAAD’s seven arguable virtues, International Journal of ArchitecturalComputing, vol.2, iss.1, 2004.

8. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia and Autodesk, BIM in Australia2010, http://www.architecture.com.au/i-cms?page=1.13262.13289.13527.14980,[09-11-2011].

9. Deutsch, R., BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, AIA,2011.

10. Downes, L., The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life andBusiness in the Digital Age, Basic Books, 2009.

11. Architectural Transformations via BIM, ed. By Yoshida, N.,A+U Publishing,Tokyo,2009.

12. MacLeamy, P., Project Effort and Impact, http://www.buildingsmartsd.org/ [19-9-2011].

13. Bazjanac,V. Understanding the BIM in NBIMS, Building Technologies Department,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, 2008.

14. Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez,A., and Froese,T. Building informationmodelling demystified: does it make business sense to adopt BIM?, InternationalJournal of Managing Projects in Business,Vol. 2 Iss: 3, 2009.

15. Davies, D.,The MacLeamy Curve, The blog of nz Architecture,http://www.nzarchitecture.com/blog/index.php/2011/10/15/macleamy/ [11-11-2011].

16. Gallaher, M. P., O’Connor,A. C., Dettbarn Jr. J. L., and Gilday, L.T., Cost Analysis ofInadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, 2004

17. McGraw Hill, The Business Value of BIM: Getting BIM to the Bottom Line, 2009,http://www.bim.construction.com/research/ [11-11-2011].

18. AIA, A Working Definition – Integrated Project Delivery, McGraw Hill – ENR RegionalPublications, Sacramento, 2007.

19. Kieran, S. and Timberlake, J., Cellophane House, KieranTimberlake Publishers,Philadelphia, 2011.

20. FACIT, http://www.facit-homes.com/, [19-9-2011].

21. Penn State University, BIM Execution Planning, http://bim.psu.edu/, [19-9-2011].

22. Holzer, D., Optioneering in Collaborative Design Practice, International Journal ofArchitectural Computing, vol.8, iss.2, 2010

479BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins

480 Dominik Holzer

Dominik Holzer

AEC Connect1/36 Berkeley St., 3053 Carlton,VIC,Australia

dholzer@aecconnect.com