Why, despite the many advantages of BIM technology, so few design firms are able to carry out true BIM-based design?

Thread Content

This post was last edited by hesonchang214 on 2019-8-26 at 11:50. Why, with so many advantages of BIM available to design firms, and after all these years, are there still very few design firms that are able to carry out true BIM-based design? Why do design firms still stick to CAD, such a \"backward\" 2D production tool? Logically, with an advanced level of productivity available, everyone should strive to achieve it as quickly as possible. But why, in BIM design – the very origin of all BIM applications – do many organizations that use BIM limit their use to a superficial level, using it merely as a tool to assist in design or as a gimmick during the project bidding process, without truly enabling productivity? What, then, is preventing the development of BIM design? What we want to say is that BIM technology should be placed in second place; poor management is the primary factor hindering the development of BIM-based design! On the one hand, we are very optimistic about the development of BIM in China, as it is like uncultivated land that has just begun to be developed, with endless prospects. On the other hand, we are not optimistic about the development of BIM design in our country’s design institutes, especially if the current operating models of these institutes remain unchanged and they attempt to adopt BIM design using outdated approaches – in such cases, failure is almost inevitable. Why is the operating model of design institutes in our country so incompatible with the BIM world? The ideal BIM design should be a model in which the various disciplines within the design team (architecture, structure, mechanical systems) work together on the same model. The architecture team creates the building model, while the other disciplines build upon this model to add more details and carry out their own specialized designs. Upon completion of the design, a comprehensive model containing design elements from all disciplines is provided to the client. This model already incorporates features such as visual design, collaborative design, performance analysis, and pipeline synthesis. The owner utilizes the BIM model provided by the design institute to extend it to construction and operation phases, thereby achieving BIM capabilities throughout the building’s entire life cycle. This is an ideal situation, but in reality, various difficulties arise: 01 The collaborative nature of BIM can lead to weaknesses. In the CAD era, different specialties involved in architectural design worked almost independently; many design firms did not even utilize collaborative design capabilities in 2D CAD, and there was no unified layer-management template across companies. Under such circumstances, to implement BIM design is equivalent to having to overcome two barriers in sequence: working alone, collaborating with others, and carrying out 3D design. It goes without saying what kind of challenge such a leap would pose to the existing working patterns of our country’s design institutes. In McCan, it is required that all specialties make progress simultaneously; if any one of them falls behind, it will create a weak link that can undermine the entire team. It can be seen that the collaboration aspect of BIM is a double-edged sword. At this point, it is necessary for the company’s managers to make sustained, long-term investments in technological upgrades, as well as to have clear and strong management goals. For design institutes at present, this requirement is indeed quite high. 02 Can IT support keep up with the demands of BIM design? In the CAD design era, the IT departments of design firms had relatively simple functions; their tasks mainly involved upgrading computer hardware and handling various network management tasks. Therefore, many small and medium-sized design firms simply outsource their IT work. However, in the era of BIM design, companies have very high demands for IT support. Firstly, the configuration of individual computers as well as servers needs to be optimized. Moreover, since BIM design involves multi-software and multi-user collaboration, the IT department must have a thorough understanding of the features of various specialized software in order to find solutions to different problems. At the same time, it enables continuous training for employees at all levels. In short, BIM design is not just the responsibility of designers; it is a systematic effort that requires the collaboration of both engineering designers and IT support staff. In this regard, the existing working model of the design institute still has significant flaws. 03 The distribution system in traditional design institutes constitutes the biggest obstacle; it is also the greatest hurdle within the existing management system. Those familiar with the allocation methods used by design institutes know this book: \"Labor Quotas for Civil Building Design.\" This red-colored booklet, published by the Ministry of Construction, has become an important basis for various design institutes, especially state-owned ones, when allocating income among different specialties at the end of the year. Some design institutes, taking into account their own specific circumstances, issue guidelines for the allocation of output values within their institutions based on this red booklet; however, they generally still follow that standard as a basis, making only minor adjustments. There are two very important questions here: First: What is a quota? Baidu explains it as follows: A quota is a standard that specifies in advance the amount of resources required to produce one unit of qualified product, under conditions of reasonable labor organization and proper use of materials and machinery. Undoubtedly, in design firms, the amount of resources consumed is most prominently reflected in the amount of drawing work done by designers. Second: The proportions of various specialties specified in this table actually represent the maximum allocation percentages for each specialty in engineering design. In other words, no matter how detailed the drawings are, designers won’t get paid more for that; on the contrary, if they can simplify the drawing process and improve their efficiency, their salary will not decrease. Of course, the drawings need to pass the drawing review. In fact, over the years, as competition in the design market has become increasingly fierce, design fees have also become lower. The drawing quality of various specialties within the design institute is indeed becoming increasingly simplified. For example, in many projects, detailed drawings of bathrooms are no longer prepared; in some departments working on structural aspects, structural floor plans are even omitted, with the calculation results from software being used directly to create the floor plans. In the mechanical engineering field, system axonometric drawings are increasingly being replaced by system schematic diagrams in those areas where such drawings were previously used. Against this backdrop, if we want to implement BIM design, does anyone know the workload ratio for different specialties in BIM design? In fact, up to now, no one knows. And if one were to apply these quotas from 2D CAD design directly to BIM design, it would certainly encounter resistance from all the various design disciplines. Based on our experience, with BIM-based design, the workload for various disciplines compared to 2D CAD design is as follows: Architecture: During the modeling process, the workload is significantly higher compared to 2D CAD; however, after modeling is completed, tasks such as creating sectional and elevation views, as well as compiling lists of doors and windows, result in **reduced workload**. This can also explain why, in design firms, the usage rate of REVIT in the architecture field is higher compared to other fields. Structure: Unknown. Because currently, BIM does not provide sufficient support for generating structural drawings in accordance with domestic standards. And if it is required to create reinforcement models in the structural beams, slabs, and columns as well, the workload will increase significantly compared to 2D drawing in CAD. Equipment: Compared to 2D, the workload for BIM design increases significantly, mainly in terms of pipeline integration. Because in the existing system, the allocation ratio for the equipment specialty is determined based on 2D design. At this point, the work of indoor pipeline integration is incomplete. To a large extent, pipeline integration is further developed on-site by the construction company. In BIM design, pipeline coordination must be fully implemented in the design documents. The workload will increase significantly. It can be seen that in BIM-based design, the workload for each design discipline is greater than in 2D design; compared to the current fees charged for architectural design, the workload is higher and the design process is more challenging – this is one aspect of it. On the other hand, the increase in workload for various specialties varies, so it is not possible to apply the work quotas used in 2D design directly to BIM design, which would lead to greater internal distribution conflicts.