P E N U M B R A

OK, I am not here for a long post this morning. Just found it worthwhile to quote Brian Lighthart's golden statement which truely holds when addressing use of an integrated lifecycle-supporting collaborative Building Information Model by all actors in AEC/O. He has nonetheless articulated this in a general way also encompassing traditional formats such as dwg files:

I suppose the logic is "Why should I redraw this when that work is already done?". That logic is sound, but it ignores the contracts and the money involved.

... and the ensuing questions are not less stimulating and pertinent to contemporary debates in the field:

Do the agreements say anything about sharing drawings? Who decides what layers are visible, or included in the dwg as furnished? Who pays for the time to vet, assemble and convey the files, and deal with any communications problems or misunderstandings as to the content of the files?

Here is another piece of uncomfortable truth put forward by Dominic Seah (I can not confirm it):

At the moment, standard contracts in the UK, and i suspect in the US as well, prioritise the delivered 2D info over the BIM model.

I would like to come back to this later on. This is about somewhere in the industry where the boundaries are being pushed forward on a daily basis; and need to be done so, even at a faster pace in near future.

Source: LinkedIn