| id |
ecaade2008_190 |
| authors |
Russell, Peter; Elger, Dietrich |
| year |
2008 |
| title |
The Meaning of BIM |
| source |
Architecture in Computro [26th eCAADe Conference Proceedings / ISBN 978-0-9541183-7-2] Antwerpen (Belgium) 17-20 September 2008, pp. 531-536 |
| doi |
https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2008.531
|
| summary |
The paper is a position paper, not a report about a research project. It concerns the paradigm-shift that is taking place in the CAAD software and its implications for the business of architecture and more importantly, for the education of future members of the profession. Twenty years ago the use of CAAD software as a replacement for hand drafting was starting. Since then the transformation is complete: hardly a final project in the universities is drawn by hand. Currently, we are witnessing a second paradigm shift and its name is BIM. The meaning of BIM is rooted in two significant differences to current CAAD software and this will have implications for teaching and practicing architecture. The first difference is the way the software structures information in the CAAD file. The standard way to save CAAD information was to organise simple geometric objects according to membership in groups and to sort them according to a layer-metaphor, which primarily controlled the visibility of the geometric elements. Three-dimensional modelling is/was nothing more than the same structure with a more complex geometry. BIM software changes this structure by storing classes of geometries and then to store the specific values of individual geometries according to factors that can be determined by external or internal logical factors. The implication for architects is that we have the chance to be the people in control of the building information model, so long as we invest the time and energy to fully understand what is happening to the building information during the planning process. If we ignore this, the real danger exists that the last control of the building’s final configuration will be usurped. As educators we are currently teaching students that will be leaving the schools in 2012 and beyond. By then, the paradigm-shift will be in full motion and so it behoves us to consider which skill sets we want the next generation of architects to possess. This means not just teaching students about how to use particular BIM software or how to program a certain parametric/genetic algorithm in a form-finding process. We need to teach our students to take the leadership in building information management and that means understanding and controlling how the building information flows, how the methodologies that are used by the consulting engineers affect our building models, and knowing what kind of logical inconsistencies (internal or external) can threaten the design intention. |
| keywords |
Building Information Modelling, Digital Curriculum, Architectural Pedagogy |
| series |
eCAADe |
| email |
|
| full text |
 file.pdf (174,564 bytes) |
| references |
Content-type: text/plain
|
Björk, B.-C. and Pentillä, H. (1991)
 Building product modeling using relational databases, hypermedia software and CAD systems
, Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, 6(4), pp. 267-279
|
|
|
|
|
Björk, B.-C. (1989)
Basic Structure of a proposed building product model
, Computer Aided Design, 21(2), pp. 71-78
|
|
|
|
|
Junge, R., Steinmann, R. and Beetz, K. (1997)
A Dynamic Product Model - A base for Distributed Applications
, CAAD Futures 1997, Conference Proceedings, München (Germany), 4-6 August 1997, pp. 617-634
|
|
|
|
|
Oxman, R. (1986)
Towards a New Pedagogy
, Journal of Architectural Education, Summer, 39, pp. 22-28
|
|
|
|
|
Russell, P. (2003)
Understanding Virtual
, SIGraDi 2003, Proceedings of the 7th Iberoamerican Congress of Digital Graphics, Rosario, Argentina, 5-7 November 2003
|
|
|
|
| last changed |
2022/06/07 07:56 |
|
