Særligt et projekt fik i den forbindelse min opmærksomhed, nemlig en empirisk analyse af vanskelighederne designet og udførelsen af London Heathrow Terminal 5. Problemet der blev undersøgt her var (ligeledes) de praktiske / institutionelle udfordringer der følger af, at BIM, som én fælles it-infrastruktur, skal samle tre forskellige professioner / kulturer (AEC: Architecture, Engineering og Construction).
I et tidligere indlæg (4/9) har jeg annonceret et udvidet abstract. Lad mig her citere fra konklusionen på artiklen:
The 3D BIM modelling practice by far exceeds the 2D CAD drawing practice in complexity. The 3D model is a highly relational entity that reaches out or associates itself with other entities of a practice; in that process it translates what it relates to. One of my informants actually said so: “But it [CAD] was a linear process, this [BIM] is no longer a linear process. Now we begin sketching in a tool that at once ramifies in all directions and it follows that if there are people who mesh with this process, who do not know what they do, then suddenly, the ignition defaults. Then the engine cuts out on one cylinder, and then the whole model is torn apart. It is insanely demanding to keep track of everything, and it becomes exponentially worse the more data you have in the model – you loose perspective.”
Flexibility is a corner stone in most medium-sized practices. You can’t afford to lose it, because it is a matter of survival. Being capable of moving around human resources is an imperative. It is not only a matter of motivation, of training, of changing routines and procedures, it is also a matter of data discipline, of setting-up QA procedures that take into account the potential harmful result of just minor mistakes. It is a matter of reconsidering traditional phases – well established (Danish) traditions and tender procedures are not necessarily compatible with the way in which foreign software developers have optimized their software; traditions are different in the UK, US, etc.
BIM was set about, in a Danish context by what we normally perceive of as a bureaucracy, but the software applications are almost perfect bureaucracies it themselves. When modelling is associated with existing practices working routines, quality assurance procedures, project phase models and much more are disrupted. The bureaucracy of BIM works in a way that existing practices get disorganised. Whether or not that is for the good or for the worse depends on your perspective, on the way you proceed. But the two paradigms are here, they will co-exist for a number of years to come. It is a challenge that comes with a price tag, but it is a challenge with both pro’s and con’s. I am uncertain as to degree the professed visions of BIM will come through but I have come to the conclusion that when the spokespersons of the actor-network hinted that BIM would initiate a revolution, a shift of paradigm, a new alphabet, they were right. The question remains, however, if the character or quality of the revolution is what they thought of.
Såfremt du er interesseret i at høre nærmere om hvordan jeg er kommet frem til denne konklusion, hører jeg gerne fra dig.
Opslag
