Response to Report on Integrated Practice 8:
The past few reading assignments have touched on similar
aspects. Between the three readings, they all highlight BIM’s benefit to the
field of architecture, engineering and construction. Collaboration, cost
benefit and faster output are only three benefits to employing BIM at architecture
firms.
Jim Bedrick and Tony Rinella have focused their attention on
process and how the design field works. I laughed when I saw the description of
the design and construction process. It does seem less intuitive to visually
think in 3-D, deconstruct our 3-D idea into 2-D, just so we can rebuild it in
3-D again. Their assumption that the field refuses to give this up is because
we’ve been doing it for thousands of years. To me, it seems that they can’t be
too far off. Why give up a system if it’s proved it can work for so long?
Architecture and the allied fields do see the benefits of
BIM. They mention how cost analysis and day lighting analysis have increased
productivity by tenfold because of BIM. People are preforming analyses with
much greater precision because of BIM in only a fraction of the time. To me, it
was amazing how cost analysis estimates could be delivered in one day with BIM.
Traditional means meant that it would take 3 weeks for all of this to be performed,
but because the software stores the price of the material, it was calculated
automatically. Perhaps it might even take a few bureaucratic jobs away from the
process.
The field must change, and, like with AutoCAD, it does seem
that firms are accepting BIM. As I mentioned before, it has been very hard for
me to find a job because of my lack of revit skills. AT every interview, they
always ask me if I know revit; people just aren’t hiring you if you don’t know
the latest and greatest program.
No comments:
Post a Comment