There are varying opinions on who should lead the development of BIM. Today, the BIM Building Training Network will offer a bold hypothesis—please be kind in your judgment.
Assumption 1: The Owner (Developer)
From a purely market-oriented perspective, this assumption aligns with the practices observed in many developed countries. Undoubtedly, the primary beneficiary of BIM is the construction project developer. I once attended a lecture given by the Global Engineering Director of General Motors (GM), which addressed the challenges faced by the design, manufacturing, and software industries. The lecture also served as a promotion of GM’s internal BIM system and standards, emphasizing its “market-driven” nature.
Assumption 2: The Government (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development)
This assumption stems from China’s unique context of a “socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics.” Many facts support the idea that government agencies in China, serving the public interest, are quite effective at driving such initiatives. For example, the comprehensive implementation of digital reporting regulations became widespread across the country under the directive of the Ministry of Construction.
Assumption 3: The Design Institute
To be honest, I am less optimistic about this scenario. Although many design institutes are actively experimenting with BIM, most efforts remain local and exploratory, often focused on conflict detection. The primary goal tends to be enhancing the competitiveness and added value of their design services. Unfortunately, this results in a somewhat “limited” use of BIM.
These viewpoints are purely speculative and grounded in real-world contexts. They do not consider the complex interactions between these parties, so please take them with a grain of salt!
Must log in before commenting!
Sign Up