I think that perhaps our biggest challenge in BIM is the different industry perspectives/ personalities and agendas that we have within the design/ building construction/ building management space.

Those of us who have been in the BIM implementation space for many years would agree our biggest challenge is always (a) resistance to change and (b) a conflict and misalignment of industry sector values and agendas.

~ M. Van Kolck

Now before I continue I will be clear in stating the following: This blog post is riddled with generalizations simply because without being general I won’t be able to make my point. So if any of my observations offend you feel free to console yourself that they simply don’t apply to you or take the opportunity to see if perhaps there is a slither of relevance in what I am saying.


So let’s have a closer look at some of the misalignment of values and agendas within our industry. All attributes listed below are just my perception and I place no judgement on these observations. There are some very good reasons why certain personality types are drawn to various sectors within our industry. For example, we need engineers to be fixated on practicality, safety and structural or mechanical integrity. We also need our designers to be visionaries so that we build a world filled with less mass-produced, ghost-like, buildings that are void of personality and the imagination of the human spirit.



  • Visionary, Idealistic, Imaginative, Creative, Detail orientated
  • Their identity lies in their unique way of viewing their world and their endless pursuit of creating beauty and spaces that uplift those that experience them
  • Resistance to following any solution that makes them feel less unique. Architects could be found arguing that no single systemized solution could possibly ever apply to them, their client, studio or firm.
  • Resistance to “mass-produced” solutions.
  • Their fear of losing projects to other firms causes them to be far more reluctant to push back when the industry or project demands are unrealistic. As a result the Architects are often the sector of the industry that wears most of the cost in delivering BIM projects simply because they assume responsibilities more easily when other industry sectors drop the ball, refuse to take accountability for certain tasks or make extreme demands.
  • Prone to making too many design variations and creating great strain on project resources and profitability as a result of over detailing their models or specifications.
  • Can be controlling in nature due to having a strong tendency towards perfectionism and wanting to protect their vision.
  • Tend to over detail documentation since they distrust that their design intent will be adhered to without detailed specification. Can be known to over specify.
  • May be more easily influenced by external validation that they are unique and that their quest for beauty is essential, even noble. (Something the software industry has worked out and mastered about marketing to this type of client.)
  • Projects are less likely to be profitable because design variations can consume resources and profits and architects/designers are cautious to charge for too many variations especially when they are often the cause of the next design change/improvement.
  • Staff can become exhausted with imposing high pressure deadlines and endless overtime hours worked, in the midst of constant re-designing of the project vision.
  • Might try to avoid conflict with client in terms of negotiating higher fees or more reasonable project timelines but could raise the roof in the battle for the perfect door tag! ;-)

ENGINEERS (Our Planners / Analysers)


  • Engineers are dominant in their practical mindedness
  • Tendency to share information less freely.
  • Have mastered the art of not demystifying exactly what they do so or how they do it. (E.g. Home renovation TV shows abound but we don’t see a DIY engineering program making prime time TV.)
  • Less concerned with aesthetics, in general.
  • Far more concerned by safety and workability. (As they should be)
  • Feels most comfortable in systemized solutions but does not always like to assume or take ownership of roles or accountability outside their current industry scope of agreed responsibilities.
  • Can be accused of being less pro-active (at times). This might simply be because this industry tends to attract more analytical personality types who may be less swayed with ideals of social integration (as opposed to architects/designers who are hard-wired to strive for harmony)
  • Probably attracts a more methodical, even cautious, personality type that finds value in concentrating on safety, mathematics and problem solving. (Again, this is a good thing and appropriate for their role.)
  • Reluctant to assume accountability for things that are not within their scope
  • Hesitates in modelling too soon for fear that the architects/ designers will change their minds. It would not be uncommon to hear an engineer boasting “We only start modelling our stuff when the architects have finally stopped changing things, which basically never happens!”
  • Architects are often known to assume more responsibility than they should in the BIM model because “the engineer hasn’t started modelling yet”
  • Projects are more likely to be profitable because re-work is kept to a minimum.

CONSTRUCTION (Our Problem Solvers and Building Makers)


  • Can often be quite unsympathetic to the plight of the architect.
  • Known to be frustrated with trying to marry the ideals/visions of the artist with the practicality and affordability of project outcomes
  • Can be less precious about design and concentrates more business/ profitability of building of actual project.
  • In cases where the construction firm is also the client a much larger focus is placed on design but the profits of owning the final building product can help wear some of the design variations more easily than normal Architect/ Design firms can.
  • Tends to dominate the BIM delivery if they are the project client, especially since they benefit directly from the mandates that are made.
  • Are often not consulted right until costing stage of the project which can create disjoin in the BIM integration workflow and result in potential variations later in final project design stage.
  • Generally less focussed on the practical processes, workflows, documentation hours required to achieve BIM models and more attached on the end result of deliverables.
  • Can be labelled as the bully in the play yard. A Construction Manager might argue “It’s the Architect’s problem if he can’t fight back or argue for more commissions if it takes longer to build a LOD 400 model!”
  • Focussed on getting the job done.
  • Often frustrated with high pressure deadlines and problem solving on the run. Dealing with unexpected variables on site and undefined decisions that the Architects or Engineers might have missed along the way.



  • I have always said that QS is a ‘black art’ filled with a keen sense of grounded intuition and complex calculations and considerations of costing, time lines and deliverables.
  • Highly skilled at allowing for all kinds of variables within the construction process.
  • Whilst they are referring to the BIM models more these days to check sizes and quantities I do still believe that much of what a QS manages to do and calculate cannot be defined on a sheet or in a drawing.
  • They are reasonably isolated on most BIM projects and their specific needs are largely unquantified within the industry in terms of general industry understanding of exactly what they need.
  • Creating data for QS’s in terms of costing can often be ineffective or almost meaningless since they often have their own highly intricate costing schedules and formulas that extend far beyond the purchase price.



  • Easily forgotten in the process of BIM
  • Often inundated with far too much unnecessary data and poor management of digital data.
  • Their biggest challenge is being able to allocate the appropriate data easily without having to step over endless amounts of excessive data that is simply not relevant.

SOFTWARE INDUSTRY (The Powerful Industry Persuader)


  • Highly reliant on marketing with extreme effectiveness and ruthless precision to sell their software solutions.
  • They are leveraging of their opportune timing of being able to facilitate BIM collaboration with the use of digital technology.
  • I believe that the Software Giants in this industry sector are deliberately slowing down the pace at which solutions are being released to the industry to some degree. This may sound cynical – I know – but it’s simple business. If the software industry committed to creating an integrated/universal BIM solution within the next 24 months they would not make the same money than if they drag this process out for years on end. Much like the health industry – they make more money when their clients are sick or in need of care.
  • Of course the best way to drag out arriving at any universal BIM solution is to convince their clients that they are unique and that they ‘need’ a customised solution to meet their specific aesthetic and client data needs. They need to persuade the client that a single integrated solution is not possible and they spend a lot of money every year doing exactly that!
  • Improvements in BIM software must be regular and incremental to keep industry hope alive that the BIM challenge could possibly become easier to manage one day. They might call it “clever marketing strategies to ensure long-term viability of their product”
  • The software industry holds the key, resources, capital and skills to many of the digital tools that could redefine BIM in a very short period of time if they had the incentive to do so.
  • Unfortunately BIM Software giants thrive when our industry is misaligned and confused. This is because we are not united in holding them more accountable for improving the speed and efficiency with which to solve the technical aspect of the BIM dilemma.

With all these different industry personalities in our building BIM project environment it becomes obvious why creating a BIM solution would be an extreme challenge. The issue of why BIM is taking longer to solve in the building industry (as opposed to the car industry, as an example) becomes far more apparent. In the car industry the Client is the Manufacturer, Designer and Engineer, their values and agenda are aligned and easily mandated.

Perhaps the best way forward for BIM to really excel in our industry is for the industry to redefine the context within which we interact and to quantify exactly what they cost is when we are not a united front? Maybe it is time for everyone to “own our stuff” and to reflect on whether we are really doing as well as we would like to pretend that we are.

Our industry is not a bad one to work in but I have observed that it can be quite petty, judgmental, arrogant and very egotistical. It seems to me that everyone is so busy making sure that their turf, their job, and their fixed way of being is protected that no one is really working towards true integration for BIM, the project and most importantly – the various project teams and their client. I would like that to change and to see that every team throughout the lifecycle of a BIM project is winning and that some BIM teams are not falling through the cracks so easily. BimBoomBam_Revit_UpsideDownBim-9

Perhaps our goal should not be Building Information Modelling but Building Integration Modelling? Well – that’s enough of my philosophical ramblings… I hope this has also been food for thought for someone else out there in this big wide world.

Let another ripple go forth and make this a better industry to work in by sharing this post if it resonates with you on some level  ;-)



TEETHING PROBLEMS – GC to Revit – My response

QUESTION FROM READER: I’ve integrated the GC tool (thanks to the Revit conference contacts!) into an elective class starting early next year and am working with some Masters students using this and Rhino’s Grasshopper tool.
There are still teething problems with the integration back to Revit (or into a BIM workflow is more accurate I guess) and would appreciate and comments on this.


Hi David

I will just quickly respond to your question – in brief – and say the following:

I am okay with the GC model remaining in DWG format with the Revit model. (I know this is technically not best practice – but I think in this instance the pros out way the cons. I would say in response to your question that I am also okay with GC generating all the required BIM data for the GC part of the model. whilst the Revit model generates the data for all Revit related model.

In that sense I do think that we need to reconsider the purist approach/ ideal that so many have clung to for so long…

The more I get to grips with BIM the more I believe that BIM should not be so much a single model driven solution as much as it should be a database- associated-with-a-collaborative- collection-of-models-solution.  (Ha-ha … A new term for scrabble fans ;-p)

My point being that the ideal of cramming every single bit of information into a single model environment (even per discipline) might – potentially- be too idealistic given the current limitations within software’s from various sources to integrate fully.

I hope this answers your questions in some form.

  • Essentially my approach would be to build a Revit model where appropriate
  • Import a GC model (in DWG) where Revit cannot generate the require form and complexity
  • Generate automatic Fabrication plans (AMEN!!!!!) through GC and import into Revit to keep documentation output set tidy. (This will become an ongoing management task – since the GC will not remain live if changes are made. But I think it can be managed with good ol’ fashioned communication ;-)
  • Schedules for Revit model obviously come from Revit
  • Schedules for GC model from GC- Since the GC form could not be generated in Revit (And if it could you would obviously do it in Revit – unless GC fabrication plans where still a requirement) So in that case import schedules into Revit or even better… export all relevant data into a neutral database environment.

That would be my plan of attack… which I’m sure might ruffle a few feathers – but hey there’s always more than one way to achieve an out come.

I hope that was helpful and has answered your question for the most part.

I would just say that I would not waste hours of my life converting a GC model into Revit massing (Apply by face) unless it was really-really worth while. And I can’t imagine when it would be…mmmm… Sure it means you will need to dimension the GC model every time you re-load but my response to that would be – dimension the GC model in detail only when it’s resolved!

GC is a very specific software that should be used to generative a unique range of forms that currently Revit and other 3d modeling software’s currently cannot.  Sure – there is some time lost in rework of dimensions… but hey – I wouldn’t be game to try model some of the GC forms in Revit. Apart from the fact that you must remember that the BUZZ about GC is it’s ASSOCIATIVE, LIVE and can generate new forms based on new formulas or constraints. Use it’s strengths and adapt your BIM solution accordingly. That would be my approach.

I’d be happy to approve your comments and findings if you wish to share them on this blog in future. Mm… I did say it was going to be a short response – I cant seem to help myself sometimes!!! Have fun.

Cheers for now



Great Generative Component links – Explore some more

To All

I am adding this reply as a seperate post as my blog tends to hide replies in a logical place (below original comment ;-p) ….. but some of these useful links may not show up instantly to a new reader – so forgive any duplication.

Hi David

I’m glad to read that you are exploring GC!

To be honest I’m a bit snowed under right now to add much more on the Revit and GC challenges and benefits. Testing and learning more about GC has gone on the back burner for a while since I am working on an international project that was nominated at the RTC this year.

As you would know I am part of the committee that is working towards trying to define some best practices & standards/ guidelines for Revit content across Australia and New Zealand.  The project is proving to be a bit of a beast but we are making some progress ;-)

Fergus or Sean (from Bentley) have offered to be of assistance to anyone wanting to explore GC in more detail. Here are some links they sent me a few days ago that I hope may prove useful to curious GC fans….

You are most welcome to add any finding of your testing to this blog as I’m sure other readers would be excited to hear what you discover along the way. I have also invited Sean to comment to any of your responses on my blog should they pop up.

The video from the RTC GC demo is now up on the Bentley website at

The direct link to the GC demo video stream (which we covered at RTC in my talk segment this year) is:

To contact Fergus or Sean please email Fergus at and he will direct emails accordingly.

Best of luck and please let us know how it all goes!


Again I would like to thank a team of people who also assisted me along the way with being able to present Generative Components this year in my talk.

 Stephen Taskin – Associate    [Altis Architecture]

Many of us have known Stephen for years in the Revit world. He has spoken on advanced Revit Modeling several times before at RTC. As always Stephen loves pushing the boundaries of what’s possible so of course it was not hard to get him to join me in this exploration. Thanks Stephen – I know you have been so busy!

  •  Fergus Dunn – Building Industry Director – Aus/NZ
  • Sean Dodsworth – Building Consultant –

[Both from Bentley Systems]

 I would also like to give a special thanks to Sean and Fergus. They have gone out of their way to make sure our Revit audience will get value from the GC demo at RTC in a context that does not detract from Revit in any way.

How GC models behave inside Revit files

How GC models behave inside Revit files

A special thanks to Lars Moth-Poulsen who is an Application Engineer at Bentley Systems, who did a great job in building the demonstration model and who is also a great teacher of GC concepts ;-)



  •  Massing cannot be applied to surfaces
  • But there seems no need to be able to do that
  • Cuts in all views
  • Can dimension. Aligned dimensions work best – since twist can cause elements to no longer be parallel to screen work plane. Arcs can be dimensioned if cut, like Revit. Create point as work around.
  • Better when updated, since massing is not reformed.
  • Obviously changes made on reload will mean dimensions are lost. Small price to pay for flexibility and re-generation speed of form
  • Fabrication plans can be imported into Revit
  • Fabrication readings of x,y and z co-ordinates can be reported in schedule format through GC.
  • Layers can be switched off in VG to create various set-out drawings – like structural versus glazing etc.

 GC Export

Here are some tips of best settings from Sean Dodsworth (Bentley Solutions) when saving the GC model into a DWG format that is best for Revit®

GENERATIVE COMPONENTS – How to import into Revit

When doing some testing about how to best bring a GC model (3D-DWG format) into a Revit file we came to the following colcusions:

Essentially we had two option:


  •  It is treated as one complete object. Elements cannot be selected individually
  • No massing can be applied
  • Less control when trying to dimension to it.


 Loaded into Project file

  • Makes reloading easier and accurate since origin point and offsets are already defined. Bring dwg in the same place in family. Then okay.
  • Can apply massing to the elements, but it can be a bit tricky due to the complex nature of some forms.
  • When form is changed, the massing in Revit disassociates since the reference in no longer the same. (Linking not an option in Revit family files) Massing elements can be re-associated to dwg.
  • Updates will drop dimension
  • Layers can be switched off in VG to create various set-out drawings – like structural versus glazing etc.


I wanted to introduce a software solution that creates some impressive massing forms that go beyond parametric design and move into associative relationships.

Generative Components - Conference Pilot

  • It offers unique forms that are based on formulas and point driven relationships. Building associated relationships that literally dictate the form. By changing an association the form quickly morphs into a new shape.
  • I am not introducing this software to propose we ditch Revit – obviously – but it is potentially a useful tool – just like Sketch up, Inventor or Rhino.
  • I see it could be used for an architectural feature, like an awning, sculpture, sky light or even part of the building form.
  • It can be brought into Revit. We have done some testing and I will include our findings in the next few posts.


 I recently spoke to Richard Wang and Jack Lee from Tonkin Corporation in Sydney. They told me that there is a Building Information Conference called BIM ASIA 2009 being held in Singapore in late February and they are looking to encourage Australian companies to attend.

I found it interesting to hear that this event has been designed to focus on understanding and grappling with the strategy of implementing BIM (As a business case) rather than being another technical, software-specific focussed event. I am told that the classes will be presented in English so it may be an event that you may wish to attend? (I’m told it is also sponsored by Autodesk, Consoft and Tekla.)

I have offered to add this information to my blog as an extended invitation from Richard and TONKIN CORPORATION to join their event. I don’t think I will be able to attend but I look forward to hearing from Richard and any other attendants how it went.  Please see PDF attached for the details of the event. 

PLEASE NOTE: Jack lee has offered a unique offer to any Australian attendees that have not yet registered and that pay in full by 6th of February 2009. The conference price has been reduced to au$1500.00 per person, if you use the promotional code at the top of the registration form on the pdf below. (That is virtually HALF PRICE!)

Also you can pay the registration fee at any Commonwealth Bank in Australia and you don’t need to transfer money to Singapore to register.

CLICK PDF link to open download window and once more (in new window) to open: building-information-modelling-asia-2009

If you have any questions about the conference please contact

Jack Lee (General Manager)  




Thank you for your comment Jack to my conversation” DISCLAIMER – I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER. DO YOU?”. You have raised a few interesting points. One of which has let me to post this response separately… as a bit of a detour, if I may….

Your comments about what we were doing in the past (already) had me hop on the web, out of curiosity, to see how far back I could go in seeing what has changed…. (My brief search did not find much and I might try and find lil gems along the way- for interest sake.) I did however find something I did not expect and had not even anticipated. I am not going to even dare comments on virtual games but I did find this in my search and thought I’d post it as a separate topic for those of you who may want to peep outside the box a little…

Have a look at this… it’s called Construction and management simulation games (or CMSs). I guess these games could be seen another expression of BIM, after all here, in this virtual world, players are building cities and maintaining empires  …. but it was this quote that intrigued me:

 “….But pure CMS games differ from strategy games in that “the player’s goal is not to defeat an enemy, but to build something within the context of an ongoing process.”

(I’ll leave it at that) If you have any other interesting historical insights into the way we did Building information Management or even modelling in the past please feel free to send me your comments and I can stitch it on to this separate post. 


I am not going to pretend that I know everything about this BUZZ word “BIM” because I don’t think it is that easy to grasp – The ramifications from a business and industry perspective is huge and so multi-faceted. The current enquiry for me is to move beyond any single software/supplier solution. BIM is so much more than a 3D model stuffed with heaps of “possibly useful” data and some sexy schedules. In this blog I will engage in a dialogue of “What is BIM really and how (as an Industry) do we actually pull this off? “ in the hope that this debate may lead to the expansion of my (and perhaps your) understanding of BIM beyond some of the surface solutions that are being promoted out there that seem to have little substance when I dig a bit deeper and challenge a typical software salesman’s solution.

Frankly – I’m bored of the conversation that everything should be stored in a 3D model and that schedule exports of quantity take-off’s equates to using “BIM”.

I guess technically it is – perhaps defined as “small BIM”. All I can seem to comprehend from my understanding and research is that the true concept of BIM in the context of industry change is far-reaching. I have read journals and definitions of BIM that truly challenge the efficiency of our industry and exposes the depth of data mismanagement and the enormous challenge that lies ahead to address some of the issues. This inefficiency results in project costs blowing out, wastage of resources, materials and the duplication of knowledge multiple times within the life cycle of a project. (Some statistics claim 7-9 times in a project is the same data recaptured by various Departments and specialists) There must be a better way – and in my opinion it means thinking beyond a single platform solution.

I am beginning to grapple with the enormous challenge that comprehensive BIM is asking of the Design and Construction Industry and I am curious to see whether egos will be put aside and territories will be merged within our industry in order to accomplish this enormous task. Of course – there is hope. I remain committed to see a solution that provides a sustainable, duplicative and comprehensive solution that does not result in information overload across Departments and just another version of chaotic Information management.

Does anyone have some insight or comments on how we could go about this?

© Copyright Reserved by Michelle Louw