I am looking at the possible difference in risk structure between a non BIM-IDP use projects and BIM-IDP use projects.
It depends on what kind of allowance you mean, but from my point of view, generally BIM+IPD would reduce the contingency allowances due to reducing the number of Request for Information (RFI), increasing prefabrication which result in on-time delivery and less number of on-site activities and so on. However there is an upfront cost of BIM implementation in any construction project.
thanks for your opinion. That is exactly what I am trying to investigate. I wonder why despite of many publication showing benefits of adopting BIM and IDP, many contractors still hesitate to use this technology. I believe the term "upfront cost" you used has illustrate it all. Uncertainty of the return on investment has been a challenge for non users to overcome. Next question and I think is my key point is why dont we show clients the "upfront benefits" of BIM to compare with the "upfront cost" and how can we do that effectively? I had some ideas but they have not come together clearly enough
Well, to my opinion, the "upfront benefits" may not worth to implement BIM as they may sound little benefits to clients, BUT if you show the overall benefits from design to demolition, including project efficiency (lower construction cost, lower operation and maintenance cost, etc.) then BIM would definitely worth to implement by clients and other stakeholders. To this approach "BIM education" will be highlighted as the key point, not only for clients but for all major project stakeholders.
BIM requires a student put in a lot of work, I recently looked at doing a 300 sq metre house in REVIT and gave up after a day - I have used AUTOCAD for a long time and I was being paid for the model.
It is good for clashes - but a program can do the same thing for a lot less money - if it exists.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics