As the client's BIM manager, I tend to leave all these questions to the planners, who have the most experience with their best practice approach. The information that the client needs is set exiplicit project properties My_Pset_Foo and checked against those of the planners, which may lie somewhere, but must be available.
For a long time, endless LOD wallpapers were developed in Germany to show which level of geometric detail was required in which work phase. The first doubts about this approach arose when it became clear that a planner would have to touch the geometry from one work phase to the next. This is exactly where digitalization would have made business processes infinitely more expensive, slower and frustrated planners. Think of a structural engineer who already knows in the design phase exactly how he wants to build the structure in the end.WWeWhichWhich What a waste of time! The logical next step was to separate the geometric data from the information content. LOD = LOG + LOI according to EN 17412, Level of Development = Level of Geomtery + Level of Information.
What we need are geometries and information appropriate to the work phases that are already defined.
And we need to clearly link it to some objectives we want to achieve.
E.g. if we want to calculate the ventilation load, we need to model the spaces from goo of final floor to butom of the structural slab and between the walls. With at least a name that encapsulates the use in the attribute long name.
We need to be very specific based on objectives and very granular use cases.
As the client's BIM manager, I tend to leave all these questions to the planners, who have the most experience with their best practice approach. The information that the client needs is set exiplicit project properties My_Pset_Foo and checked against those of the planners, which may lie somewhere, but must be available.
Me too, When working on the clients side I only focus on the client's requirments. Either for a quality assurance or hand over to FM.
All the other planning related things are up to the team and I don't meddle.
The only difference is, I try to be as close to the IFC standard as possible, to promote standardized interfaces.
For a long time, endless LOD wallpapers were developed in Germany to show which level of geometric detail was required in which work phase. The first doubts about this approach arose when it became clear that a planner would have to touch the geometry from one work phase to the next. This is exactly where digitalization would have made business processes infinitely more expensive, slower and frustrated planners. Think of a structural engineer who already knows in the design phase exactly how he wants to build the structure in the end.WWeWhichWhich What a waste of time! The logical next step was to separate the geometric data from the information content. LOD = LOG + LOI according to EN 17412, Level of Development = Level of Geomtery + Level of Information.
What we need are geometries and information appropriate to the work phases that are already defined.
And we need to clearly link it to some objectives we want to achieve.
E.g. if we want to calculate the ventilation load, we need to model the spaces from goo of final floor to butom of the structural slab and between the walls. With at least a name that encapsulates the use in the attribute long name.
We need to be very specific based on objectives and very granular use cases.