28 February 2017

The Axioms of BIM

BIM can seem complicated at times, but is it really?










1.    BIM can be used by anyone for anything.

BIM is not limited to certain purposes or particular groups.


2.    The BIM you do directly benefits what you do.

If not, you are doing someone else’s work for them.







3.    BIM replaces or enhances something you already do.





4.    BIM is not possible without BIM capable software.





5.    BIM works best with Collaboration.

Sharing your data means others share their data with you.




But once that happens collaboration is definitely low hanging fruit.



Some examples I've seen are:
  • Whether the effort or expense is worth the outcome.
  • Whether it is possible with current technology and skill sets.
  • Whether there enough time in the program for implementation.




To recap the BIM Axioms are:

  1. BIM can be used by anyone for anything.
  2. The BIM you do directly benefits what you do.
  3. BIM replaces or enhances something you already do.
  4. BIM is not possible without BIM capable software.
  5. BIM works best with collaboration.


Which axiom applies to each of the following:

A.   You wouldn't use BIM for that.
C.   BIM is a whole lot of extra work.
D.   It doesn't matter which software you use for BIM.


Supplementary quiz for the dedicated:

A.   You can do BIM with CAD software.
C.   The primary purpose of BIM is for facility operations.
E.   COBie doesn't cost anything.



  1. Amazing. So coherent, crystal clear. To put it in even more poetic terms, your articles are a lonely oasis of calm wisdom surrounded by the rambling shitstorms of halfassed fluff-producing dickheads.

    1. Don't sit on the fence dido...

      Nice article though, particularly the putdown of the idea that BIM isn't about software, or at least technology platforms.

  2. This article is like a small database, great effort as usual.
    But i still think that BIM isn't that clear to AEC professionals, otherwise we would be using BIM instead of CAD right away.
    But we are trying to convince not only our clients but our managers as well which is not an easy job.

    1. Ibrahim, there are far to many clients, managers and others who simply do not understand 'WHY' BIM, which should not be confused with the 'HOW' and 'WHAT' for BIM. Quite simply if people do not understand or care 'WHY' you do BIM they will not understand BIM and you will possibly never get them to understand.
      'WHY' is all about the specific reasons, purpose or belief of 'WHY' you do BIM. IMHO axioms 1, 2 & 3 provide an excellent start to defining 'WHY' you do BIM, with axioms 4 & 5 'HOW' you do BIM and the 'WHAT' being the physical success and outcomes of BIM e.g. high quality deliverables, cost savings, schedule mitigation, data for FM, happy clients, etc. etc.
      If you are finding it difficult to have clients and managers understand BIM may I suggest this short You Tube video. I have used this successfully on a number of occassions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTX9mQbOjuY&feature=youtu.be
      Another resource is the B1M's Introduction to BIM a series which I have found to be a useful teaching resource.

  3. That's a good but frustrating read. I started to write my objections to Axiom 2 but then thought I better read further because I didn't know how you could exclude the collaborative benefits. For similar reasons, when I made the point to my company that coordination was secondary, it didn't go down well. They thought I was saying it was unimportant when all I wanted to say was that the design intent is primary and the collaboration is subsequent.

  4. It seems as if no one sees the contradiction between each project participant putting its interests first, as called for in Axiom #2 and the architect wanting to control the BIM model in a way that would seem to conflict with Axiom #5. Why jump to the conclusion that the architect wants to control its intellectual property to the detriment of project cooperation? It is quite possible that an overall BIM model produced in pieces in the separate silos of the multifarious consultant, contractor and vendor disciplines will likely not result in a good model but rather a Frankenstein of disassociated and conflicting interests and attitudes toward what BIM is. The architect will be turned to in such a situation to make it right, which is tantamount to saying the architect is to be made the scapegoat of the situation. For if what we want is the architect to be responsible for a quality BIM model we would have it produced by the architect in the first place with the understanding that responsibility for the model must entail authority over what goes in it and by whom it is produced.

    1. Stourley, you have a mistaken view of what BIM is. There is no such thing as a single "BIM Model". The BIM process is where information within individual BIM models are shared, then people extract what they need. No-one creates a BIM model for someone else, they create it for themselves.

  5. I concur with the above reply and I love and try to live by the rule of thumb which Axiom #2 is. (If I or my company is not going to use feature A, why waste my time and company's money to put it there on the first place).

    I think the confusion comes from potentially thinking that, just because BIM is a holistic approach to the building and construction process, it is a top-down, centrally-structured initiative. It's not. It's a bunch of craftsmen shaking hands over how things can be done in such a way so that everyone else benefits - that's the standardisation of BIM. On a micro level it's not even that - it is, for example, me deciding never to draw another manual Section in my life.

    In that way my own interest is everybody else's interest.