Multibim - the world of BIM is diverse

17 of June '21

Jerzy Rusin

Jerzy Rusin - owner of Multibim -.
"About the adaptation of BIM technology"

When more than 20 years ago, being in my first year of university, I came across the possibilities of parametric 3D design no one called it BIMyet. I came across the right program by a happy coincidence - Archicad, as it was referred to, was very unpopular at the time - out of 350 people studying architecture, only a few were using the tool - the rest were drawing in "cad." Assessing at the time the ease and speed of creating designs in 3D, I confidently expressed the opinion that "in two, three years at the most, no one will be drawing flat". The optimism that accompanied me has remained with me to this day, but experience makes me look more realistically at the dynamics of adaptation of new technologies.

BIM implementation - a benefit, not a necessity

"I will implement BIM technology when the developer requires it - otherwise it makes no sense to me." Have you come across a similar opinion? Or do you yourself agree with it?

I have had the opportunity and good fortune to work with a wide variety of projects: from single-family houses, residential buildings of various scales, shopping centers, industrial buildings, transportation centers, office buildings, to historic tenements or power substations. I was a designer, but that was not my only function. Our team carried out a number of interesting projects in Poland, Norway, Finland, Germany and other European countries using BIM. In all projects, BIM technology was used, but to varying degrees. Almost always some teams implemented part of the processes with "traditional" methods and tools: cad, excel, word....

None of my experience has ever confirmed that any part of the project documentation is worth drawing in 2D and implementing other than with BIM technology. We have repeatedly observed how time-consuming and cumbersome it is to work with 2D drawings created "manually", spreadsheets unrelated to the project, descriptions created without the use of auto text. This was especially true for design changes, which in BIM technology are made only once - in the model.

Implementing BIM technology makes sense for any designer, regardless of the scale, type, stage, or mode of the project. Let me express this opinion and challenge those of you who disagree with it, because I am convinced that designing with BIM technology always saves time. Sometimes a lot, often a lot, but the balance is always positive. Better control over the quality of the project, or greater enjoyment of the design itself, is an added value.

We implement proven tools

I do not avoid saying that in Multibim we implement the best tools. Someone will say: "you claim they are the best because you implement them". But there are a huge number of tools, and our portfolio consists of these and not other programs. Why? We know they are the best because we have tested it. But, what does "best" mean? What evaluation criteria should be used? The issue is very complex, and the attempt to evaluate is extremely complicated.

Selection by experience

Having participated in dozens of projects using almost all major programs, we observed how they performed in practice. We analyzed the tools in terms of compatibility and interoperability, utility values, performance, cost - not only of licenses, but also of necessary investments in implementation and staff training. We looked at manufacturers' policies, how they approach their customers and what they use to shape, for example, pricing and licensing policies.
When choosing software, we are certainly guided by the immediate costs of purchasing and maintaining licenses - here's the first tip: look long term. Perpetual licenses are initially more expensive, but after two or three years we start to save on them.

In addition to the direct costs they generate, the programs we work on indirectly determine the profit or loss recorded on specific projects, the company's short-term and long-term bottom line. Tools are specific infrastructure requirements - workstations and servers. On the choice of tools often depends the choice of our company to implement the project, but also the fluidity, continuity of work, and the satisfaction or frustration of the team - a value that is difficult to convert into money, but in fact priceless.

The client requires native files - what to do about it?

Another opinion I will argue with is the need to use one company's software within a studio. I encounter statements: "We work on this software because the developer/developer requires us to".

Of course: "the customer is our master" and if he is ready to pay for the source files (native to the software in question), representing the studio's know-how - why not! However, let's draw investors' attention to this and price such products accordingly. It is worth remembering that the requirements of native files are often not preceded by analysis and are put without awareness of the consequences. In practice, the investor usually does not need native files and published IFC, PDF, XLS and other files are sufficient, even better suited to the needs.

Software selection - less ideology, more pragmatics

We, too, at BIM Point sometimes receive an order for files of a particular software, by no means always Archicad. We then create the project in the appropriate tool, but this does not mean that we have to abandon Archicad, which is by far a more efficient and cheaper solution, and is our favorite tool. Software is not a religion - you can use different ones.

The studios that motivate the fact of using only one BIM software by the developer's requirements often do some design work in a simple "cad." Despite the fact that their programs come from a single manufacturer, they are more different from each other than Archicad is from any BIM program. Is the argument therefore valid?
There can be only one conclusion - if we are free to choose software, let's use the one that has the best ratio of quality (broadly defined) to the cost it generates and therefore allows us to achieve the best results at the lowest price, which translates into business value for our studio and for our clients.

OpenBIM standards - a freedom we should not give up

Thechoice of tools should be an autonomous decision dictated by the technical and business needs of designers. This is the spirit of the specialists associated with the wider construction industry working together within buildingSMART. The open standards created by this organization, such as IFC for model transfer and BCF for communication, give us this freedom. As ISO standards, they are widely used by construction and investment process actors around the world. Their popularity is growing every year, and they are already required in many European countries.

One cannot disagree with the statement that investors should care about the best design work. With few exceptions, the fact that some of them are shutting out many designers by requiring native software formats seems difficult to explain. When faced with such requirements, try to analyze the needs of the developer - perhaps the use of open standards buildingSMART will be not only sufficient for the client, but also more beneficial, and certainly cheaper.