PLM v BIM: United Or Separated?

Any idea how few practices use CATIA in AEC? By quoting an atypical user, almost unique, you aren’t talking about the industry at all.

“Storage, files, viewing, revisions, data management, data sharing” – Go look at the Bentley Systems Portfolio.

BIM products can’t even talk to one another as the formats are all highly proprietary – IFCs are lowest common denominator. Standards are nearly all unique and processes vary widely.

You are right, AEC projects are highly distributed and involve many firms which are also involved in many other projects and they all use a very different mix of tools, even if they are in the same field.

The industry’s inefficiency isn’t because the lack PLM. It’s much deeper, it’s contractual,, it’s cultural, it’s mindsets and the majority of the users are still actually only 2D. BIM is a long way off and those that were early adopters are still trying to iron out their processes and have trouble finding other like minded BIM partners.

Companies like Boeing own their product and are actively involved in fabrication and supply chain. In the building AEC chain (excluding Process Plant), the owner is, in the main, distinctly absent in the day to day collation and control of the data. Post production FM is still very 2D – there is no real BIM FM yet.

In this whole PLM in AEC I see a load of folks from manufacturing naively looking at the general AEC and thinking it’s easily transferable and the benefits will be the same. This is moronic. I also see these firms that sell expensive consultancy to implement these systems, with many failed PLM implementations (and systems garnering bad names for themselves) around the world and before PLM CPD and all that crap which turned out to be mainly hype. The AEC industry doesn’t like spending much on its software, it doesn’t like change and is slow at adopting new technologies, projects can take 3,5, 10 years. Aim the conversation at document management don’t evangelise PLM – a term with no footing or place in AEC.

Mart

Martyn,

Do you just cut and paste your reply at this point?

Oleg,

As I read this blog post, I remembered this nice Quote from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.”
You are a visioneer and your blog is full of nice ideas and visions for future. 😉

Keep on going, the world needs more like you in all fields of science, society, etc. It doesn’t mean that all that you and yous say is correct and will be someday realized. But without challenging ideas and visions, we would still travel with hours!!!

Now to your post:

The similarities are fundamental and important (especially at data-level). It makes it possible to have one back-end solution with various front-end modules in different layers, which makes the solution multi-usage.

Indeed it is a XLM solution and X can be theoretically anything with the basic similarities at data-level. It needs however more flexibility and new technologies at meta-model levels to make it possible. I think it’s just a question of time and hopefully will be seen in a near future ;).
Best

Martyn, Oleg

I’m a bit disagree that PLM (or something similar, I’m not an engineer) is so different from AEC. If we look at the design-build concept as a buisiness, the “design-builder” is responsible for the physical outcome. A vague design project becomes a product for him.

I had an interesting practice with designing and producing certain artistic installations.

You can check an example here (translated version from isicad) :
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http%3A%2F%2Fisicad.ru%2Fru%2Farticles.php%3Farticle_num%3D15950

And that was our 8-th “product” (other are here http://paralab.info/).

Since the third installation we started to aggregate all the info on past projects because it was rather precious (suppliers, fixtures, contacts, materials, models, schedules etc). Was it an architectural design? Yes. Was it close to manufacturing? Yes.

Were we, architects, closer to (lowtech) PLM?

That is truly cultural issue.

Best,
ES

Deign build isn’t the normal process in AEC. It’s a segment and most that do Design Build produce awful boring repetitive boxes that nobody gives a damn about. Too many people in this PLM debate think that deist build is how things are done in AEC – it is most certainly not the norm.
An artist installation is not typical AEC either. The fewer project participants, the more control from the ‘owner’ the more it cab be seen as PLM. Which is why, when you look at the industry PLM can not be easily cut and paste to fit AEC.

M