on Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. This doesn’t mean that BIM cannot help on procurement or present certain challenges related to this KPI, but since the projects showed no reference to it and many to software issues, this replacement was thought to show more valuable information.
Table 4.3 Software Issues due to BIM implementation (see
Annex IV)
|
||
Project
|
Software Issue
|
Source
|
Walt Disney Concert Hall
|
Inconsistencies and lack of data on
the 3D model
|
Haymaker and Fischer, 2001
|
Eagle Ridge
|
Technical difficulties
were encountered that made it necessary to make ‘manual’ adjustments to the
drawings produced automatically
|
Kaner et al., 2008
|
Expeditionary Hospital
|
Information Transfer Bottlenecks
|
Manning and Messner, 2008
|
Lack of Parametric Content
|
||
Unfamiliarity of BIM’s breadth of ability and
associated experience of application in programming
|
||
Precast Shelter
|
modelling issues that
arose from ignorance of the right modelling practices
|
Kaner et al., 2008
|
Cascadia Center
|
not all the data could be
interchanged
|
McGraw-Hill, 2010b
|
US Food
and Drug Administration Headquarters
|
large projects pushed the limit of the software
|
McGraw-Hill, 2010b
|
20% of the projects presented software issues. This is a relatively high number, although analyzing the type of software issues (Table 4.3) one can see that these issues could be easily solved with more training of the personnel and better development of interoperability standards and practices as well as having all stakeholders using BIM in the projects.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment