CONVR2011, International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, 2011

BIM – HISTORY and TRENDS

Madalina Wierzbicki (author)

UBC
madalina@interchange.ubc.ca
Clarence W. de Silva, (co-author)
UBC
desilva@apsc.ubc.ca

Don H. Krug, (co-author)

UBC
don.krug@ubc.ca

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the history and the components of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in the
context of the industry and market dynamics. We discuss the key technologies and their chronology to explain the
inception of BIM. We identify the dual role of BIM as practical tool and idealized concept. As a tool, BIM is
responsible for many documented Architectural, Engineering and Construction industry (AEC) achievements. We
emphasize its importance in setting the direction toward computer-aided collaborative environments and
integrated workflows. As a concept, BIM symbolizes the AEC activity, and stimulates a discourse about the
architectural profession and its future. It engages both the academic community and professionals and provides a
converging point for their perspectives. We use this concept for theorizing the future capabilities and limitations of
BIM. BIM is a symbol of collaboration yet the adversarial nature of corporate branding and market domination
has resulted in many mutually incompatible BIM offerings. BIM inherits from CAD’s paradigm of numerical
precision. Consequently, it interfaces poorly with early ideation stages. We propose that the continuing progress in
computing technologies is driving the trend toward complex, highly integrated tools and workflows. In this context,
BIM has the potential to expand along, and across, workflows and processes. We examine the internal and external
weaknesses of BIM, and discuss the possible directions of BIM evolution. We conclude that the unique contribution
of BIM lies in establishing the milestone and the direction for the AEC industry. BIM’s inception has oriented the
AEC industry toward becoming the media of regional and global collaboration in planning and developing built
environments.

KEYWORDS: Building Information Modeling, BIM, AEC, architecture, construction, collaboration, workflow.

1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we adopt a factual approach while tracing the development of BIM. The chronology of technological
milestones and the dynamics of market decisions bring out the image of BIM as a collection of disparate marketing
strategies rather than a universal AEC language. Nevertheless, the concept of BIM as the tool of collaboration
across teams and across workflows is strongly established. We use this concept in an abstract and idealized sense to
theorize potential directions of BIM’s future development. We explore a hypothetical scenario where the nucleus
defined by the current BIM expands constantly across related activities, workflows, processes and into the future.
Through these transformations, we probe the concept of BIM and its potential.

2. CHRONOLOGY
Figure 1, maps the timeline of software technologies over the context of market activity. The key industry players
followed different strategies. Some relied on their traditional main CAD platforms and built BIM solutions around
them (Bentley, Nemetschek). Others developed entirely new modeling engines (Autodesk). In all cases, a complex
blend of CAD and AEC technologies established the foundation of 3d parametric modeling. Once integrated with
an Information Management system of choice, it becomes the final BIM solution. IM technologies took off in late
1990s.
In the same period, CAD, and AEC, became universally parametric. AEC and IM were integrated and became
BIM. This vigorous software development activity coincided with many decades long period of exponential
economic growth that continued until 2001. Afterwards, the technology development tended to be limited to
incremental improvements. The market activity focused rather on acquisitions. One of such acquisitions ended the
independence of the major BIM software pioneer – Graphisoft.
CONVR2011, International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, 2011

Fig. 1: Technology and chronology. (Wierzbicki 2011)

3. TECHNOLOGIES OF COLLABORATION AND PROCESS

Researchers agree that collaboration is essential to BIM. This collaboration expands in two directions. First, BIM
is a CAD interoperability tool that links together design models and files of all AEC disciplines. Second, BIM is an
Information Management platform that enables the synchronous co-operation between, as well as within, all
involved teams. Although CAD interoperability is three decades old and it is supported by standardized data
exchange formats like SAT, STEP, or IGES, it provides mostly a non-associative, one-way translation. BIM is
more demanding as it relies on two-way, interactive and on-the-fly coordination of parametric data. Nevertheless,
such expanded functionality of data exchange is an incremental improvement rather than a technological
breakthrough.

In contrast, collaborative team environments are a fairly new technology that was pioneered by projects like
TeamMate, Teamwork, O.P.E.N., truEVault and NavisWorks during the second half of 1990s thus coinciding with
the development of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) tools, which integrated information flow across entire
organizations. Furthermore, all these new collaboration tools needed to rely on the newest networking
technologies like Internet and Gigabit Ethernet. The emergence of collaborative technologies marks the tentative
inception of BIM as all major developers have immediately integrated their collaboration tools with their
respective AEC packages. By that time, 3d modeling was already universally parametric.

Notable are the different strategies adapted by the major industry players. Bentley and Nemetschek base their
products on their main CAD platforms that are being continuously developed. Autodesk tries a few approaches
before adapting and combining new CAD technologies. Bentley and Nemetschek diversify their market offerings
by acquiring other AEC/BIM platforms. Such variety of strategies and components highlights the fact that the
BIM’s touted integration, interoperability and collaboration are a delicate compromise of very different
technologies (Neff, Fiore-Silfvast 2010). In all cases, the 3d modeling is the underpinning of the final product.
However, even this core component is a varying mix of surface and solid modeling methods.

Is BIM a process? Although this term is frequently associated with BIM, it may be rather the result of an idealized
projection rather than actual attributes. Scholars define a process as a sequence of actions aimed at transforming
inputs into a desired outcome. Other, and related, attributes of a process are ‘decision,’ ‘purpose,’ ‘learning,’
‘expertise’ and ‘quality.’ Furthermore, the term process has a wide application scope ranging from industrial
automation to entire business organizations. In all cases, the process is temporal in nature and involves sequences
of actions. A tool can be considered as a low-level component of a process. A tool may imply some logical steps of
a process. Yet just by itself, it does not reveal anything about its goal, expertise or decision. Only within the context
of a process, the tool can play a meaningful role in defining such attributes. In its current form, BIM exhibits more
properties of a tool. Nevertheless, this raises questions whether BIM can become a process, what would be needed
to accomplish this and whether there is a good reason to pursue such expanded function of BIM (Ottchen 2009).

Also coinciding with the inception of BIM, Business Process Modeling (BPM) became the subject of vigorous
activity on theoretical and practical applications levels. Emergence of BPM software developers like SIMUL8,
Metastorm and CreateASoft coincided with the insurgence of Information Management (IM) technologies.
Coupling BIM to BPM would create a system capable of governing all activities in an organization. Yet, it is
important to identify the conceptual differences between BIM and BPM. BIM needs to remain as a relatively
open-ended and transparent production tool in order to handle a broad range of architectural projects. BPM, once
implemented, becomes a unique and relatively permanent expression of organization’s policies on efficiency,
quality, purpose and ethics. As such, BPM may adapt a supervisory role and monitor the efficiency of project
delivery, administer project management details like human resources assignment and track the quality of
communications between team members, teams and external parties.

4. TRENDS
BIM, as a fusion of CAD, information management, and collaboration technologies, extends over various building
delivery workflows: architectural, structural, electrical and HVAC. We identify and discuss two directions of this
extension. BIM spans across the workflows by providing a platform for collaboration and information sharing. The
other axis is along the workflows, or, as researchers often refers to it, upstream and downstream

Fig. 2: Trends.

Along this axis, BIM provides support for various phases of workflows: initial design, detailing, design
verification and construction documentation. Furthermore, we theorize, along these axes, the trends and the
potential of the future BIM evolution. The Figure 2 maps BIM’s expansion over a backdrop of workflows and
processes related, technically and administratively, to building construction.
CONVR2011, International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, 2011

The ‘across’ direction spans over civil engineering and GIS. In fact, BIM-GIS integration is currently very active
(Laat 2010). This direction points toward the ‘macro’ scale of BIM’s scope: through urban and regional to global
infrastructure modeling. There is also the potential for BIM to expand in the ‘micro’ direction (not shown on the
diagram). Such direction would link BIM to material engineering thus enabling access to the newest materials as
well as driving the demand for new materials. The engineering side would benefit from systemic data collection
from actual buildings. Another extension toward the ‘micro’ end would be integration with social sciences.
Buildings play the critical role as behavioral settings. Ubiquitous information technologies expose designers to
immense amounts of data Ottchen 2009). Designers would be able to incorporate perceptual criteria and employ
behavioral analysis tools. Researchers would gain access to behavioral data collected from actual settings. Urban
areas are subject to increasing level of surveillance. Scholars note the inevitability of such approach in view of the
increasing urban density. They also point out the evolving paradigm of surveillance, the notion of participatory
surveillance and the role of ubiquitous connectivity. In all, surveillance needs not to be exclusively derogatory
measure. Instead, it can also become a tool of emotional comfort management.

Within the limits of workflows, the ‘along’ axis is the subject of considerable body of research. Scholars
conclude that, at this moment, BIM is weak in supporting the ‘upstream’ direction: early design stages and ideation
(Eastman 2008, Penttilä 2007, 2009). Also, the ‘downstream’ direction that supports the post-construction
operations needs much improvement. This indicates that BIM has not evolved yet too far from its CAD
underpinnings. Workflow stages that rely on non-CAD approach tend to be poorly supported by BIM (Sturts
2010). Researchers point out that BIM needs to develop the capacity of dealing with ‘soft’ qualitative data in order
to support early design stages. This implies a significant leap beyond the limitations of CAD’s explicit numerical
modeling. Also, the operational ‘downstream’ requires different data structures that are suitable for managing
temporal variability. In contrast, CAD relies on modal representations – numerical 3d models do not ‘age,’
meaning there is no natural temporal component in them.

The outer circle indicates the expansion beyond the ‘productivity’ workflows and into the domain of higher-level
governing processes. Comprehensive building lifecycles, urban and regional development establish a large-scale
temporal arena for potential BIM activities. When directed toward the future, BIM has the potential to become a
tool for planning, decision-making and goal development. In this capacity, indispensable will also be the access to
the past. An easily accessible repository of historical records will be the source for analysis and knowledge
making. If expanded over such large geographical and temporal scales, BIM gains the potential of becoming a tool
of governance, perhaps even global governance.

4.1 4.1 The role

Achieving efficiency in integrated workflows relies on eliminating duplicate and non-contributing (non
value-added) tasks as well as process bottlenecks. This exposes the traditional workflows to a scrutiny, which, in
its procedural and unemotional pursuit of productivity, often questions the established wisdom and habits. For
instance, whether BIM empowers architects, or rather, whether it diminishes their role. Whether it streamlines the
job of engineers to the point where the concept-to-construction workflow becomes a viable option. Such questions
flex the boundaries of the traditional professions and facilitate the discourse on their future. Here, BIM becomes
the catalyst of change, the source of new capabilities and the target of new skills. BIM affords this pivotal position
of importance thanks to its tremendous potential as a project delivery tool (Pniewski 2011). The AEC industry
quotes examples of BIM’s contributions in terms of efficiency and cost reduction. Nevertheless, it is important to
point out that BIM is far from becoming a universal remedy to AEC ailments. Thus further confirming its role as a
complex and potent, but merely a tool, its success depends on the intersection of its functionality and the
operational processes of an organization. Therefore, a skillful fusion of technology (BIM) and process (the
organization) is the necessary yet elusive and difficult to quantify step. Architectural projects are complex and
notoriously diverse thus further complicating matters. An efficient delivery of one project does not necessarily
assure the same on a different one. This opens yet another debate: whether BIM is the vehicle of typification, or
whether it enables uniqueness and customization.

4.2 Evolution
The question is if or when BIM, while undergoing this hypothetical expansion, becomes sufficiently detached from
its original purpose and starts loosing meaning within the new context. This opens the exploration of semantic
evolution of BIM. Although, if assuming a gradual and continuous expansion, we can trace at any stage a logical
connection between the new and the old, the phrase Building Information Modeling may become misplaced. For
such comprehensive and vast information structures the identifier ‘Building’ would probably yield to a term
reflecting better the ‘total’ and ‘global’ aspects.

Many researchers have noted the BIM limitations that are stemming from its CAD origins. What are then the
possibilities of expanding its scope? As BIM is the result of one strong technology (CAD) becoming an attractor
and a binding nucleus for many supporting satellite technologies, a new strong technology transcending the current
limitations may form an entirely different nucleus and assimilate BIM in the process. Although speculative, such
scenario has a few plausible candidates. Strong Artificial Intelligence is a machine-based intelligence that equals
or surpasses that of a human. Synthetic Intelligence is a hypothetical concept of intelligence that is entirely
different from that of a human. A machine-based knowledge-making and reasoning entity would open
unprecedented possibilities. It would also pose unprecedented problems – researchers’ caution. Nevertheless, it
would be capable of integrating the entire BIM and use it as a task-oriented effector.

Yet another test of BIM’s resilience during these hypothetical transformations relates to the 3d modeling capacity.
What are the limits of usefulness of a numerical 3d representation? The entire globe can be represented as such
model. This is a viable option using, for instance, cloud computing. However, other complementing global
characteristics require different methods. The already developed and in use Global Climate Model technology is
based on Computational Fluid Dynamics. Modeling social activity relies on motion, locational indexing and
agent-based programming rather than 3d detailing. On the global scale, a 3d model becomes one of many
components of equal importance.

4.3 Limitations
Although the general notion of BIM is that of a tightly integrated and coherent system, researchers note many
issues originating from the structure of BIM itself. The process of designing is an iterative temporal activity while
a 3d parametric construct is inherently modal (Shelden 2009). Reconciling these disparities involves always a
work-around in the form of versioning, document and file management using database tools. In the process, the
integrity of the 3d model is altered by adding an abstract dimension of changes and versions. Only a rigorous
control by the supervisory database logic assures a coherent representation across all AEC threads.

Collaboration is the important declaration of BIM. However, it is noted that the mere existence of many brands of
BIM has raised challenges. The IFC data exchange standard is aimed at providing a consistent framework for
information exchange between various BIM. Researchers point out though the limiting effect of the common
(lowest) denominator. The chronology also reveals an interesting disparity between the focus of major developers
on intra-BIM and inter-BIM collaboration. Four different collaboration solutions have been integrated with four
different CAD platforms in less than three years – BIM is born. In contrast, adapting the IFC standard spans nine
years.

5. CONCLUSION
The image of BIM is complex and bears signs of being an answer to the wishes of practitioners as much as being
the result of a marketing strategy. Besides being a tangible tool responsible for many documented AEC
achievements, BIM plays an important role as an abstract concept of architectural activity. As such, it provides a
far more resilient ideal of collaboration and integrated workflow than its practical incarnation. It transcends the
boundaries of current professions and workflows. It engages the academic community in an explorative discourse
about the future of the AEC industry and the architectural profession. We sourced from this inspiration to examine
the potential of BIM’s future directions of development. Regardless of whether it will remain as such, whether it
will be assimilated by other technologies, or whether it will disintegrate from within, BIM has already established
an important milestone, laid out the direction toward collaborative environments, and integrated workflows. BIM
has formed the nucleus of significant development potential for the future architectural workflows.
 CONVR2011, International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, 2011

6. REFERENCES

Aouad, G., Arayici, Y. (2010). Requirements Engineering for Computer Integrated Environments in Construction,
Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.

Aranda-Mena, G., Crawford, J., Chevez, A., Froese, T. (2008). Building Information Modelling Demystified:
Does it Make Business Sense to Adopt BIM? , CIB W78 25th International Conference on Information
Technology in Construction, Santiago.

Barton, R.T., Soft value management methodology for use in project initiation: a learning journey, Journal of
Construction Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 109-122.

Bonandrini, S., Cruz, C., Nicolle, C. (2005). Building lifecycle management, The International Conference on
Product Life Cycle Management - PLM'05, Product lifecycle management: emerging solutions and challenges for
global networked enterprises, Lyon, 461-471.

Dubois, A., and Gadde, L.E. (2001). The Construction Industry as a Loosely Coupled System – Implications for
productivity and innovativity, 17th IMP Conference, Oslo,.

Eastman, C., Automated Assessment of Early Concept Designs, Architectural Design, Closing the Gap –
Information Models in Contemporary Design Practice, 79/2, 52-57.

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., and Liston, K. (2008). BIM Handbook, Wiley, New York.

Kymmell, W.(2008). Building Information Modeling, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Linsey J.S. Wood K.L. and Markman A.B., Modality and representation in analogy, Artificial Intelligence for
Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22/2, 85-100.

Lubart T., How can computers be partners in the creative process: classification and commentary on the special
issue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Special issue: Computer support for creativity, Vol. 63,
No. 4-5, 365-369.

Manning, R., & Messner, J.I., Case Studies in Bim Implementation for Programming of Healthcare Facilities.
ITcon , Special Issue: Case studies of BIM use, 13, 246-257.

Smith A. S. and Jones A. B. (1994). Published electronically, Proceedings of 4th international conference of office
systems (Jones A. B., editor), University of New Brunswick, 213-232.