BIM Busters - BIM is better than VDC or VDC is better than BIM
Three letter acronyms come and go, in this article we try to identify fundamental principles that connect all frameworks. Therefore, moving the discussion from the differences to the common ground.
When proponents of these three-letter acronyms and their philosophies talk, it seems like a fight between two clashing ideologies. Everyone claims their methodology is better than the other. One pushes the ISO19650, and the other pushes the VDC framework.
I always had trouble with ideologies and applying mental models without critical thinking. So it's time to bust this useless discussion!
BIM stands for Building Information Modeling, and VDC for "Virtual Design and Construction" acronym. As BIM is heavily used in the marketing of software products, VDC acolytes claim that BIM does not address the whole picture and that we need an entirely new way of approaching design and construction. On the other side, the dogmatism of some VDC apostles can put off others.
The whole discussion seems like two monks in the Dark Ages discussing how many angels can fit on a needle.
So, instead of focusing on the differences, let's concentrate on the similarities.
Proponents of both "philosophies" want to improve the world. Both want to design and build better buildings.
To do so, both utilize technology and management methodologies. A fundamental principle of any management methodologies is goal setting and measurement of goals. In VDC, this aspect is an essential part of the framework. However, this does not mean that "BIM" does not value precise goal setting.
Both agree that we must improve our work to consistently and systematically deliver better.
When you look at my writing, you will see me borrowing ideas from both (and many other) sides and putting these in the context of project management and operational management for companies. Generally, there is very little new, and many ideas are old in a new wrapping. I saw the following concepts during my professional life:
Project management in different flavors and different frameworks. From PMI to extreme programming and other agile methods.
Quality Management and total quality management focus on defining and ensuring quality is achieved.
Integral design with bringing all trades together to deliver the best possible solution.
Risk management is quite similar to quality management, with a stronger focus on identifying risks to successful project delivery and measurements to avoid/mitigate them.
Lean management in different flavors and with their own philosophical wars. Lean focuses on identifying customer value, empowering people through continuous improvement, and stabilizing processes for better outcomes.
All these concepts have good points and share the same goals, just emphasizing different aspects.
Therefore, I recommend to the whole industry leave this fruitless discussion of who is better and focus on:
What can we do to design and build better bindings?
How can we improve communication and reduce waste due to interface problems? Between humans, between machines, as well as between humans and machines.
Where does technology help, and which problems are not suitable to solve with technology?
Moreover, we could look at other industries instead of marinating in our own world. For example, software development takes over the design pattern idea of Christopher Alexander, yet in the architecture world, he is almost not known anymore. In general, Software development did come up with some interesting concepts we can learn from. E.g., extreme programming, test-driven development, scrum, and Dev ops, to name a few. All these methodologies were born because:
It's tough (almost impossible) to describe upfront what a project should look like. If it were possible, it would not be a project anymore.
Requirements will change on the way. But you must start somewhere; otherwise, you won't reach the goal.
Formalized roles and responsibilities help with communication without having to depend on power plays and falling into the trap of believing it’s because of personal conflict. Research in conflicts shows that bad processes often cause personal dislikes...
I guess all this sounds familiar from building projects…
We can improve when we have a dialog about these questions and move the discussion away from BIM vs. VDC (or the next hype) and include the people who work and sweat on projects. Otherwise, we marinate in our bubble, and the project managers who get projects done don't take us seriously. And this is a real problem. Many client reps are fed up with badly run BIM coordination meetings, with BIM/VDC consultants explaining that they must follow ISO19650 or the VDC Framework.
So we have a huge chance to improve our world, and it would be a pity if we missed it. How we do things currently is no model for the future!
So, let's go back to the fundamentals:
The client's job is to set goals, describe what is needed, and set the framework so everybody can work. The "why" and "what" on a high level. Goal setting is complex and works very well with an iterative discovery through experiments.
The consultant's job is to define how to get there and help the client make good decisions. The "how" and the "what".
Let's be humble. Nobody can know everything; the world is too complex for that, and with increasing specialization, it is becoming even more complex. The best answer I found to manage complexity is COMMUNICATION. Communication means firstly listening and asking questions and only lastly talking.
Learn and increase the number of tools in your toolbelt so that you can choose the best-fitting one instead of always falling back on the one you know but might not be appropriate for the specific situation. Ultimately, when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Foster a collaborative mindset and a safe environment so that the best ideas and not the loudest or most powerful voices prevail. Especially involve the people who do the work - we live in a time when middle management and silos become less relevant.
So I hope from now on, we can have more discussions about better buildings and less dick-measuring with fewer three-letter acronyms that only help to build up small tribes and create a feeling of belonging. But nothing more.