___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why *.IFC, why not *.BIM?

I have had this thought in mind for a while: Why haven't we questioned the extension name of the most widely BIM format used across BIM applications?. Why do we call it *.IFC? an acronym hardly to be taken away from it's prior meaning: Issue For Construction. And above all, Why not plainly and simply: *.BIM?

It is likely to be far to late, and pushing for such a "cosmetic" modification may cost much energy for no change in essence. But the idea itself deserves to be examined: is it really true that there would be no difference if the exchange format known as IFC had been called BIM?. Imagine how much lower the threshold to resistance will be when parties on a project would agree on exchanging their BIM files. The adoption of IFC in Step format was born with a bad name, and I'm afraid is far too late.

Industry Foundation Classes is, as far as I have experienced, the best data structure and ontology distribution to describe and organize Building's data. (Also the most politically successful and correct among the BIM aristocracy)**. No proprietary format has the broad spectrum and capacity IFC has (or as by the date I'm writing this); and if there is such a format out there, I'd love to be proven wrong and taken one level up from ignorance.

With the high speed adoption of the ISO19650, or at least interest upon the standards, it is likely that in the long run, such digital "common place" will be the norm, not the exception... whatever format name we end up using... ifc, ifczip, ifcxml, json, and ad infinitum. Remember: ISO 19650 does not mention IFC. Not even once, so far. But "winks" at it by recommending the alignment to ISO12006 - "Organization of information about construction works", so the ontology is there to stay a few more years.

Now, coming back to the naming issue... maybe the time to call the format *.BIM is gone.

Should we call it . Twin?


*Footnote 1: Title inspired (copied) and content heavily influenced by a blog post from Zolna Murray. You can find it here: https://debunkthebim.blogspot.com/2021/04/an-ode-to-archicadorcan-we-call-it.html

**Footnote 2: Loosely based on Dion Moult's original though of IFC as being "not the best but the most politically correct form of BIM"

BuilDigital BIM Manifesto

 I believe that stating and continuously working on a position or a view on one's subject matter of work is fundamental to build a consistent boddy of work.

This time I will review something I wrote some time ago and that I had shared via Linkedin on my personal account. This is my BIM Manifesto, version 2.0

----

Risking that it may be too cliche for today’s standards and political correctness, I have to recognize I was due to declare my views on Digital Design Technologies / BIM and Architecture.

I’m not saying you have to agree to all of it or most of it. I don’t even know if in the future I would have to come back and review it. But for what I know as per today, this is what I think. 

So without more preamble, here it is, my BIM Manifesto:

The background of this.

I was recently re-visiting the book BIM in Small-Scale Sustainable Design by Francois Levy,  when I stumble upon a chapter named  “BIM for the rest of us”, and that triggered a sequences of thoughts that eventually took the shape of this Manifesto. 

The phrase BIM for the rest of us, expresses unintentionally one of my long standing beliefs: Building Digital Design without having ties to an exclusive software brand or file format; some sort of BIM by all means instead of BIM by prescription.

I may not be alone in this experience: not every project has every discipline modelled, not everyone is using the same software as you are, and not everyone is working live in a “cloud hosted multi disciplinary model”. Then what? Should we “throw the baby out with the bathwater”? I think not. I think we can still create quantifiable value by using different platforms and collaborating within the spirit of a Integrated Design.

It may not be perfect, and not even complete. But it is how I see it at this time: Nov 2018.

If you have any comments, please let me know on the comment area below, I really want know your opinions on it.