Is the Government to blame for the lack of progress regarding their 2016 Building Information Modelling mandate or are companies unwilling to adapt to BIM who should be held accountable?
In his latest article on Building.co.uk, Studio Klaschka’s Robert Klaschka believes that those firms “complaining about the difficulties of implementing” BIM are to blame for the shortfall of BIM adoption and perhaps a reason as to why the Government are considering scrapping the BIM Task Group as they are perhaps being led to believe that certain areas of the AEC sector are not showing the same enthusiasm as the Government initially showed.
Klaschka said: “We should all realise that we need to start treating 2016 with the urgency it requires instead of complaining about the difficulties of implementing it. As an industry we need to be honest about this. It is industry failing to deliver, not the government. We have a clearly defined process that for their own reasons, institutions and corporations feel they need to change but are never able to explain convincingly why.”
Elaborating further, Klaschka stated that the two negative types of non-adopters need to realise their mistake before it is too late. He continued:
“We have to break out of the two polarised groups, of those either too afraid or sceptical to engage with BIM, or those who are convinced they know better and stubbornly assert that they’ll do it in their own arbitrarily different but incompatible way.
“If we don’t act now then there will come a point where we have lost the opportunity, where contracts start going abroad to the countries that are implementing our own 1192 suite of standards without all the squabbling and excuses. At that point we will have failed to deliver level two BIM, and if we do we will only have ourselves to blame.”
Klashcka’s interesting comments come after the UK Government announced that the BIM Task Group is to be wound down in 2015 and replaced with a ‘legacy’ group. Some have saw the move as a lack of support for BIM within central Government, yet Klaschka’s comments certainly provide another viewpoint to appreciate.