BIMBoy at the AGC BIM Forum in Dallas

I heard the presentation referred to and was as shocked as anyone in the room, especially as it came from a fellow architect and from a firm who has been touted in AutoDESK advertising as a strong REVIT user. Upon reflection though, I believe the comments were correct. As I pointed out in my closing remarks to this conference, as exciting, challenging and promising interference checking, quantity takeoff and visualization are, they are simply the tip of the iceberg. We need to move as soon as possible to the ability to test the performance of our buildings in the virtual form so that the long term effects of our decisions can be seen not only by us but by the owner who has to live with our decisions over many decades. We have to get to the point where we are not expected to design and construct a one-off prototype that performs perfectly the first time through. No other industry would dream of doing this.

This Owner's comments are inane and did not add to the understanding of the value BIM brings to the table. Sure wasted somebodies time at the AGC meet.

BIM needs to travel and go through all stages of Design, Construction, and Facility Management and maintenace. The Construction contractor shall modify BIM to make it a BIM the way he or she is going to construct the project. The Construction BIM shall be developed by the Construction Contractor. The Shop Drawings need to be incorporated and building to be constructed virtually ahead of actual construction of the building.

As an Architect, what about my ROI? I’ve been involved with computers since 1981 and could have retired on the money spent on hardware and software. The constant investment in upgrades and training is never ending. You need highly trained people to run this software and you need to pay people to stay with your firm after they are trained. Am I supposed to just give this investment away? With the liability an Architect has, it’s a joke what we get paid now.

Interesting comments. The only question that I have is whether or not the MEP's were done within the BIM concepts. Did the KQA develop their own set of MEP symbols, details, etc. for incorporation into BIM System used??? Thank you.

John is very knowledgeable on BIM and I've seen him use the software himself. Looking at it from the owner's point of view, they were already expecting a building designed without problems. But, I believe he does need to get realistic about it. "You think you'll get the same quality for the same price with 2D, go back!" The AEC industry needs to earn a living too, not just the owners. I'd like owners to stop complaining about fees being too high, and start saying what more can be done with the same fee.

Hey guys, I''ve update the article to include KQA and the proper link. Sorry about that, Joakim, it was a transcription error while reporting live from the BIM Forum. BIMBoy regrets it.

Hey guys, I've updated the article to include KQA and the proper link. Sorry about that, Joakim, it was a transcription error while reporting live from the BIM Forum. BIMBoy regrets it.

This speach was given to an industry ripe with waste and inneficiency. It was given by an owner who is a huge advocate of BIM enabled processes and technology to eliminate that waste. It was given by an owner who has proven it is possible over and over again on his team's projects. Ask Tocci or the designers involved if they lost money or future work. It seems like in this bad economy they are doing pretty well. The fact is, the economy and competition is a reality. The AEC industry is a vendor comunity to Corporations. The responders to this blog need to realize that all corporations are focused on higher quality and lower costs. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. There are AEC industry trail blazers figuring out how to deliver this through BIM much like manufacturers figured it out through digital prototyping 10 years ago. Nike can produce a shoe that once took 18 months to bring to market in less than 4 weeks. Do you think the shoe design fees are still the same as they were when it took 18 months? Or did Nike figure this out with their vendors because it drastically cut cost and time to market in order to stay competative? To all AEC'ers. Listen to this customer. He is telling you how to deliver the best possible service, win more work and ultimately be more profitable. And like it or not, John is a typical customer.

The article says what it needs to say only from on Owner's perspective, which is valid, but only half the equation. It's true that BIM has the potential to shorten the deliverable schedule (which potentially could lower design costs). However, it also has the ability to create better documents, thereby reducing change orders and design team liability. Despite the author's view, clashes do occur. Drawings are never intended to be perfect - no client could afford that. If BIM is to be seen as a tool it should be compared to a high-end CNC machine and not chicken - yes it makes the job faster, but it also makes it more accurate and allows for possibilies that were impossible with any other tool. When using a CNC machine we would never expect to pay less than if we were using a bandsaw, would we? Architecture and Engineering are both service oriented professions - NOT product based. If these professions find tools to make them better and more efficient that is to the owner's benefit, but the service is still the same (or increased). The Owner's ROI is increased not by reducing thier cost or time but by increasing the value of the service.

It says what it needs to say. BIM is not supposed to be a toy for the design and construction industry to play with. It is a tool and tools at some point have to pay a dividend. Our firm uses BIM and we do belive it can deliver on the shorter production time and more effective deliver for our clients. The whining from the anti-bim community is the sound of a distant train headed towards thier comfort zone. This is not about lower fees, it is the delivery of value; something we as an industry often forget.

I agree with "get real" - this owner sounds like a complete moron just trying to squeeze the design professionals with a bogus rationale. Reducing design fees which are the smallest component of a project budget will hardly enhance his ROI.

This owner sounds like someone who either does not understand what they are contracting for or wishes for the usual pay less but expect more. There were no facts supplied with this article and I would assume that the entire design/construct team was on board at the beginning of the prohject which is key for BIM/Best Value to work on any level. Construction does not magically take 50% less time and the author provides no basis as to how one project was "equal" to another otherwise. All in all its a useless article and at best misleading.

For the record, it was not QKA that did the Woodfield Store alongside Crate&Barrel, but rather KQA. Please visit www.kquinnarch.com for more information. Sincerely, joakim