R5 - Interoperability

This week’s assigned reading was chapter 3 of the BIM handbook. This chapter stressed the idea of interoperability. It mainly discussed the problems associated with communication between all the different file formats and how the industry began fighting back. There have been many ‘open’ file formats developed, but the most prominent in the AEC industry is the Industry Foundation Classes. IFC is supported by a number of programs including, but not limited to, Revit, Bentley Architecture, and Archicad. It was developed by buildingSMART to facilitate interoperability. The data model is required by some agencies, such as the GSA, to be used in all projects.

The first article I read is a blog post titled ‘IFC is rubbish, it never works properly’. It is primarily an opinion based article supported by facts. This blog article examines the argument that IFC is a bad file format for data interchange. The author first suggests that many of the people that argue against IFC jump to conclusions. Instead of blaming the BIM software that IFC is imported into, the author says that people blame the file format, which isn’t the right way to go about it. In the past, Revit users have experienced a loss of data fidelity in the exchange, but this isn’t because of the file format. Revit received IFC certification in 2007 for ‘Revit Building 8’. Since then, there has been several new version releases, but no new certifications. Undoubtedly, the new releases have not been fully tested for use with IFC, but still bear the certification. With the newer version, there is a loss of data fidelity, but only because of the lack of certification requirements. The author states that buildingSMART has introduced a better testing process in determining if a software program is capable of IFC file exchange.  With the introduction of a new certification process, we should expect to see better results with IFC and compatible software suites.

The second article I read is titled ‘The Case for Data Interoperability’. This article develops an argument for interoperable software. Based on this article, interoperability only has benefits to industry. For example, in a large financial institution, a problem arose when each department began using separate systems for labeling buildings. This created confusion and it was difficult to ‘tie work orders to a specific building, much less a room’. This seemingly avoidable error causes a great deal of lost time. Another example is in building design. Drawings are taken from each step of the design process to finished construction. In the end, the client will receive drawings for as-built, mechanical, electrical, etc. This process is highly inefficient and introduces human error. Increasing interoperability will in turn create an efficient environment in design and prevent the loss of important information. The article also states that, in 2002, ‘owners and operators were paying an average of 23 cents per square foot in costs related to inadequate interoperability’. This is an extremely high cost for the refusal of interoperability.

Overall, I personally believe that the AEC industry will become more open in the future. The various BIM software developers need to agree on an open file format. It is important to growth of the industry that people begin sharing information.